ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2019
Clinical Use of Measurable Residual Disease in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurable residual disease assessment prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes: a 20-year monocentric study.Annals of hematology · 2024Article
- AML-derived Extracellular Vesicles ConferIranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementTreatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a high-risk venture for the patient suffering from the disease. There is a real risk of succumbing to the treatment rather than the disease, and even so, cure is much less than certain. Since the establishment of complete remission as a prerequisite for cure in the 1960s, a number of years passed before advanced techniques for detecting minute amounts of disease matured sufficiently for clinical implementation. The two main techniques for detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) remain qPCR and multicolor flow cytometry. When performed in expert laboratories, both these modalities offer treating physicians excellent opportunity to follow the amount of residual disease upon treatment and offer unparalleled prognostication. In some AML and age group subsets, evidence now exist to support the choice of both proceeding to allogeneic transplant and not doing so. In other AML subgroups, MRD has sufficient discriminative power to identify patients likely to benefit from allogeneic transplant and patients likely not to. After treatment or transplantation, follow-up by molecular techniques can, with high certainty, predict relapse months before bone marrow function deterioration. On the other hand, options upon so-called molecular relapse are less well tested but recent evidence supports the use of azacitidine both in transplanted patients and patients consolidated with chemotherapy. In conclusion, MRD testing during treatment is a superb prognosticator and a major tool when choosing whether a patient should be transplanted or not. The exact use of MRD testing after treatment is less well defined but evidence is mounting for the instigation of treatment upon rising MRD levels (pre-emptive treatment) before morphologically detectable relapse.
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.