Trial reportClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2019
Comparison of efficacy of HCAG and FLAG re-induction chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia patients of low- and intermediate-risk groups.
Trial report in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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.
- Comparison of efficacy of HCAG and CAG re-induction chemotherapy in elderly low- and intermediate-risk group patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021Trial
- Homoharringtonine: mechanisms, clinical applications and research progress.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Aclarubicin: contemporary insights into its mechanism of action, toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and clinical standing.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and adverse effects of HCAG and FLAG re-induction chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients of low- and intermediate-risk groups following induction failure.
methodsA total of 98 AML patients were enrolled. Among these subjects, 47 patients were treated with HCAG chemotherapy, while 51 patients were treated with FLAG chemotherapy.
resultThe complete remission (CR) and overall remission (OFF) were 24% and 38%, respectively in patients with HCAG induction chemotherapy, while the corresponding percentages were 28% and 42% in subject receiving FLAG chemotherapy. The median survival time of progress-free survival (PFS) was 29.8 (95% CI 23.749-35.851) months in the HCAG group and 30.8 (95% CI 21.728-39.872) months in the FLAG group (P = 0.620). A total of 42 patients in the HCAG group suffered from grade 4 hematological toxicity, while this adverse reaction was noted for all patients who were treated with FLAG chemotherapy (P = 0.023). A total of 19 cases indicated apparent nonhematological toxicity in the HCAG group, while only 40 (78.4%) were noted with these adverse reactions in the FLAG group (P = 0.000).
conclusionThe HCAG regimen exhibited a similar effect compared with the FLAG regimen in low- and intermediate-risk groups, although the HCAG regimen significantly decreased the toxicity compared with that noted in the FLAG regimen group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30915633What 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.