Trial reportLeukemia2019
Randomized phase-II trial evaluating induction therapy with idarubicin and etoposide plus sequential or concurrent azacitidine and maintenance therapy with azacitidine.
Trial report in Leukemia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring innovative G-CSF schedules in AML cytarabine-based consolidation through a digital twin study of white blood cell recovery.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluation of apoptosis stimulating protein of TP53-1 (ASPP1/PPP1R13B) to predict therapy resistance and overall survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).Cell death & disease · 2024Article
- Predictive value of DNA methylation patterns in AML patients treated with an azacytidine containing induction regimen.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Article
- Comparison of Hypomethylator Monotherapy with Hypomethylator plus Chemotherapy for Intermediate/High-Risk MDS or AML: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Post-remission therapy in acute myeloid leukemia: Are we ready for an individualized approach?Best practice & research. Clinical haematology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 19 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this randomized phase-II study was to evaluate the effect of substituting cytarabine by azacitidine in intensive induction therapy of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients were randomized to four induction schedules for two cycles: STANDARD (idarubicin, cytarabine, etoposide); and azacitidine given prior (PRIOR), concurrently (CONCURRENT), or after (AFTER) therapy with idarubicin and etoposide. Consolidation therapy consisted of allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation or three courses of high-dose cytarabine followed by 2-year maintenance therapy with azacitidine in the azacitidine-arms. AML with CBFB-MYH11, RUNX1-RUNX1T1, mutated NPM1, and FLT3-ITD were excluded and accrued to genotype-specific trials. The primary end point was response to induction therapy. The statistical design was based on an optimal two-stage design applied for each arm separately. During the first stage, 104 patients (median age 62.6, range 18-82 years) were randomized; the study arms PRIOR and CONCURRENT were terminated early due to inefficacy. After randomization of 268 patients, all azacitidine-containing arms showed inferior response rates compared to STANDARD. Event-free and overall survival were significantly inferior in the azacitidine-containing arms compared to the standard arm (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). The data from this trial do not support the substitution of cytarabine by azacitidine in intensive induction therapy.
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.