ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2018
Cytotoxic therapy in acute myeloid leukemia: not quite dead yet.
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-adapted MRD-directed therapy for young adults with acute myeloid leukemia: 6-year update of the GIMEMA AML1310 trial.Blood advances · 2024Article
- A nomogram using cytogenetics, TP53, and NPM1 mutational status can predict responses to induction chemotherapy in AML.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2022Article
- Emerging agents and regimens for treatment of relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia.Cancer gene therapy · 2020Review
- Low-intensity regimensTherapeutic advances in hematology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the recent approvals of new agents for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a clinical trial pipeline stocked with novel therapies, and the rapid integration of imaginative approaches in diseases like acute lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, it is reasonable to ask whether treatment of AML might finally depart from the classical cytotoxic induction therapy that has been employed since the 1970s. However, for better or worse, in 2018, cytotoxic induction regimens remain the standard of care for most patients. Indeed, the future likely lies in combinations of therapies that act with a spectrum of mechanisms. Using a case-based format, this review will outline current treatment expectations for patients according to karyotypic risk and familiarize readers with the basis for common induction choices. Relapsed/refractory disease may be especially amenable to interventions with novel agents or clinical trials; however, there are still some patients who most benefit from intensive chemotherapy. This review will outline risk systems that help the practitioner identify those with the best chances for response and survival. Finally, clinical tools, including geriatric assessments and comorbidity calculators, may help clinicians recognize patients for whom disease risk and comorbidity tip the balance against classical chemotherapy, a frequent challenge for those who treat this devastating disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.