Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31696381›Full record

ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2019

The Clinical Challenge of Idiopathic Cytopenias of Undetermined Significance (ICUS) and Clonal Cytopenias of Undetermined Significance (CCUS).

David P Steensma

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reconceptualizing Aplastic Anemia-Seed, Worm, Soil.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David P SteensmaDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Center for Prevention of Progression of Hematological Malignancies, Edward P. Evans Center for Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Ave., Dana 2037, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. David_steensma@dfci.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo review terminology, diagnostic algorithms, and clinical outcomes for patients with unexplained blood cytopenias. RECENT

findingsPatients with cytopenias that remain unexplained after organized diagnostic testing can be described as having "idiopathic cytopenias of undetermined significance" (ICUS). Patients with unexplained cytopenias have a risk of progression to clonal myeloid neoplasms, including myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). If a somatic mutation in a gene associated with leukemia is detectable in hematopoietic tissue, especially if multiple mutations with a high (> 10%) variant allele frequency are present, the risk of progression to frank neoplasia is greater than if such mutations are not detected. These patients can be described with the term, "clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance" (CCUS). CCUS patients have a natural history similar to lower-risk MDS. For patients with unexplained cytopenias, longitudinal follow-up including serial monitoring of blood counts is appropriate in view of the progression risk. Genetic testing may aid in risk stratification.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsClinical Decision-MakingDisease ManagementDisease SusceptibilityGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansIncidenceOrgan SpecificityPancytopeniaPrevalenceClonal hematopoiesisCytopeniasDiagnostic testingIneffective hematopoiesisMyelodysplastic syndromesNext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.