ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparison between 5-day decitabine and 7-day azacitidine for lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with poor prognostic features: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 2026 update on myelodysplastic neoplasms: current state, challenges and future directions.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Very-low-dose decitabine and rhTPO for thrombocytopenia in lower-risk myelodysplastic syndrome.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Synthetic lethality of decitabine plus ATR inhibition for TP53-mutated AML.Blood advances · 2026Article
- The epigenetic revolution in hematology: from benchside breakthroughs to clinical transformations.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Long-term hematologic response after azacitidine treatment in a lower-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patient: A case report.Leukemia research reports · 2024Article
- The role of noncoding RNAs in metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells.Cellular & molecular biology letters · 2023Review
- Pre-Clinical Evaluation of the Hypomethylating Agent Decitabine for the Treatment of T-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma.Cancers · 2023Article
- Leveraging modeling and simulation to optimize the therapeutic window for epigenetic modifier drugs.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Review
- Review
- Evaluation of Reduced-Dose Decitabine and Azacitidine for Treating Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Review
- Differential Histone Posttranslational Modifications Induced by DNA Hypomethylating Agents.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous studies have analysed the clinical efficacies of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, reports that compare the two HMAs, decitabine and azacitidine, in patients with lower-risk (low and intermediate-1) MDS are limited. We compared 5-day decitabine and 7-day azacitidine regimens in terms of treatment responses, survival outcomes, and adverse events in patients with lower-risk MDS with poor prognostic features. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 67.2% and 44.0% in the patients treated with decitabine and azacitidine, respectively (P = 0.014). While the median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in the patients treated with decitabine than in those treated with azacitidine (P = 0.019), no significant differences in event-free and overall survival rates were observed between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with azacitidine treatment, decitabine treatment is significantly associated with a higher ORR (P = 0.026) and longer PFS (P = 0.037). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of grade 3 or higher haematologic adverse events in response to the two HMAs. In conclusion, in lower-risk MDS, especially with poor prognostic features, ORR and PFS were significantly better with 5-day decitabine treatment than with 7-day azacitidine treatment, with comparable safety.
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.