ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2019
In MDS, is higher risk higher reward?
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- FBXO11 suppression rewires an NPM1-centered interactome influencing the progression of myelodysplastic syndrome.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Article
- Identifying Potential Gaps in Care for Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes in a Large US Health System.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Article
- Experiences and Support Needs of Caregivers of Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome via Online Bulletin Board in the USA, Canada and UK.Oncology and therapy · 2024Article
- The Pyroptotic and Nonpyroptotic Roles of Gasdermins in Modulating Cancer Progression and Their Perspectives on Cancer Therapeutics.Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis · 2023Review
- Comparison Between Decitabine and Azacitidine for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS) are defined by the original or revised International Prognostic Scoring System and specific genetic features. Treatment of HR-MDS is challenging. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, the only curative approach, is feasible in a minority of fit or intermediate fitness patients aged <70 to 75 years who are willing to face the risks of the procedure. Response to azacitidine and decitabine, the only approved drugs for HR-MDS and considered the standard of care, is partial and transient in most patients. The development of novel more personalized and efficient drugs is an unmet medical need. During the last decade, there have been substantial advances in understanding the multiple molecular, cellular, and immunological disturbances involved in the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndrome. As a result, a number of clinical and translational studies of new more focused treatment approaches for HR-MDS patients are underway. In contrast to acute myeloid leukemia, they have not resulted in any new drug approval. This review addresses the benefits and limitations of current treatment alternatives, offers a practical individualized treatment approach, and summarizes the clinical trials in progress for HR-MDS.
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.