Trial reportBlood advances2019
Randomized study of imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia: comparing standard dose escalation with aggressive escalation.
Trial report in Blood advances, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Nanohydroxyapatite-Mediated Imatinib Delivery for Specific Anticancer Applications.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Molecular Mobility and Stability Studies of Amorphous Imatinib Mesylate.Pharmaceutics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2007, we conducted a prospective randomized study to compare an aggressive dose escalation (group B, n = 123) with the standard dose escalation proposed by European LeukemiaNet (group A, n = 122). In group B, if patients did not achieve a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 3 months or did not achieve a major molecular response (MR3) at 6 months, imatinib was increased to 600 mg. At 6 months CCyR was achieved in 69.4% and 78.7% of patients in groups A and B, respectively. The rate of MR3 at 12 months and 24 months were similar in group A (52.1% and 70.0%) and group B (58.7% and 68.3%). The cumulative incidence of withdrawal by failure without accelerated/blast phase was higher in group A than in group B (9.2% vs 2.5% at 24 months). At 3 and 6 months, the protocol called for the imatinib dose to increase to 600 mg in 90 patients (74.4%) in group B. Among the 42 patients who received increased dose according to the protocol, 25 (60.0%) achieved MR3 at 12 months, whereas only 14 (35.0%) of 40 patients who did not receive an increased dose achieved MR3 (
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.