Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29482173›Full record

ArticleLeukemia research2018

Widespread use of measurable residual disease in acute myeloid leukemia practice.

Zachary D Epstein-Peterson, Sean M Devlin, Eytan M Stein, Elihu Estey, Martin S Tallman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Leukemia research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Use of Measurable Residual Disease to Improve Outcomes.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. MRD evaluation of AML in clinical practice: are we there yet?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zachary D Epstein-PetersonDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA. Electronic address: epsteinz@mskcc.org.
Sean M DevlinDepartment of Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA. Electronic address: devlins@mskcc.org.
Eytan M SteinDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA; Division of Hematologic Oncology, Leukemia Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: steine@mskcc.org.
Elihu EsteySeattle Cancer Center Alliance, UW Box 358081, Mailstop G3-200, 825 Eastlake Ave E., Seattle, WA, 98109, USA. Electronic address: EEstey@seattlecca.org.
Martin S TallmanDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA; Division of Hematologic Oncology, Leukemia Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: tallmanM@mskcc.org.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMeasurable residual disease (MRD) has prognostic importance for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). How leukemia providers incorporate MRD into routine practice remains undefined. PATIENTS AND

methodsA survey was developed and distributed to a large sample of leukemia physicians. Demographic information was collected along with details concerning MRD practices. A multivariable logistic regression model evaluated provider characteristics predictive of MRD utilization.

results268 responses were received (response rate of 41%). 69% of providers reported routine use of MRD in management of AML, most commonly (90%) for its role in guiding therapy; providers who did not use MRD routinely most frequently cited inadequate resources (58%). Providers utilized flow cytometry- more than polymerase chain reaction-based assays with nucleophosmin-1 being the most common target with the latter. We found substantial variability in how MRD affected clinical decision making, particularly in pre- and post-transplant scenarios.

conclusionsMRD was frequently used in making treatment decisions and in estimating prognosis. However, there was lack of uniformity in these practices. Standardization of assays, adoption of requisite technology, and dissemination of data about the value of MRD use would likely increase usage of MRD in the care of patients with AML.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingAdultDecision MakingFemaleFlow CytometryHumansLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm, ResidualNuclear ProteinsNucleophosminPolymerase Chain ReactionPrognosisNPM1 protein, humanNuclear ProteinsNucleophosminAcute myeloid leukemiaMinimal residual diseasePractice patternsPrognostication

Identifiers

PMID29482173
PMCPMC7029617
OpenAlexW2791097551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.