ArticleBone marrow transplantation2020
Statistics and measurable residual disease (MRD) testing: uses and abuses in hematopoietic cell transplantation.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Comparative and integrated application of flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing for minimal residual disease monitoring in acute myeloid leukemia.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Physician-complementing artificial intelligence in haematology: ushering in a new era.Leukemia · 2026Review
- Article
- Characterization of clinical risk factors for enhanced molecular residual disease monitoring in resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Review
- False-Positive and False-Negative MRD Results in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Navigating Between Scylla and Charybdis (Brief Review and Clinical Experience).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Measurable residual mutated IDH1 before allogeneic transplant for acute myeloid leukemia.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025Article
- Measurable residual mutated IDH2 before allogeneic transplant for acute myeloid leukemia.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025Article
- Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Use of Measurable Residual Disease to Improve Outcomes.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Measurable Residual Disease Detection in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Current Challenges and Future Directions.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Article
- Measurable residual disease in patients undergoing allogeneic transplant for acute myeloid leukemia.Best practice & research. Clinical haematology · 2023Review
- Review
- Article
- Allogeneic transplantation for advanced acute leukemia.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2022Article
- Achieving MRD negativity in AML: how important is this and how do we get there?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
SERIES EDITORS' NOTE: The decision whether to recommend a transplant to someone with acute leukemia in first remission is complex and challenging. Diverse, often confounded co-variates interact to influence one's recommendation. Briefly, the decision metric can be viewed in three spheres: (1) subject-; (2) transplant-; and (3) disease-related co-variates. Subject-related co-variates include items such as age and comorbidities. Transplant-related co-variates include items such as donor-types, graft source, proposed conditioning and pre- and post-transplant immune suppression.But what of disease-related variables? Previously haematologists relied on co-variates such as WBC at diagnosis, chemotherapy cycles to achieve first remission, cytogenetics and most recently, mutation topography. However, these co-variates have largely been replaced by results of measurable residual disease (MRD)-testing. Many chemotherapy-only and transplant studies report strong correlations between results of MRD-testing on therapy outcomes such as cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), leukemia-free survival (LFS) or survival. (CIR makes biological sense in a transplant context whereas LFS and survival do not give competing causes of death such as transplant-related mortality (TRM), graft-versus-host disease and interstitial pneumonia unrelated to relapse probability).This raises the question of how useful results are of MRD-testing in predicting CIR after transplants. Elsewhere we discussed accuracy and precision of MRD-testing in predicting outcomes of therapy of acute myeloid leukemia (Estey E, Gale RP. Leukemia 31:1255-1258, 2017; Hourigan CS, Gale RP, Gormley NJ, Ossenkoppele GJ, Walter RB. Leukemia 31:1482-1490, 2017). Briefly put, not terribly good. Although results of MRD-testing are often the most powerful predictor of CIR in multivariable analyses, the C-statistic (a measure of prediction accuracy) is often only about 0.75. This is much better than flipping a fair coin but far from ideal.In the typescript which follows, Othus and colleagues discuss statistical issues underlying MRD-testing in the context of haematopoietic cell transplants. We hope readers, especially haematologists who often need to make transplant recommendations to people with acute leukemia in first remission, will read it carefully and critically. The bottom line is MRD-test data are useful but considerable uncertainty is unavoidable with substantial false-positive and -negative rates. We need to acknowledge this uncertainty to ourselves and to the people we counsel. The authors quote Voltaire who said: Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one. Sadly so, but we do the best we can. Robert Peter Gale, Imperial College London, and Mei-Jie Zhang, Medical College of Wisconsin and CIBMTR.
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.