Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31942542›Full record

ReviewHemaSphere2019

Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in CLL: Ready for Use in Clinical Routine?

Moritz Fürstenau, Nisha De Silva, Barbara Eichhorst, Michael Hallek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in HemaSphere, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Liquid Biopsy in B and T Cell Lymphomas: From Bench to Bedside.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Frontline treatment in CLL: the case for time-limited treatment.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Moritz FürstenauDepartment I of Internal Medicine and Center of Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Düsseldorf, German CLL Study Group, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nisha De SilvaDepartment I of Internal Medicine and Center of Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Düsseldorf, German CLL Study Group, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Barbara EichhorstDepartment I of Internal Medicine and Center of Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Düsseldorf, German CLL Study Group, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Michael HallekDepartment I of Internal Medicine and Center of Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Düsseldorf, German CLL Study Group, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of chemoimmunotherapy and more recently the implementation of novel agents into first-line and relapse treatment have substantially improved treatment outcomes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). With longer progression-free survival and more frequently observed deep remissions there is an emerging need for sensitive methods quantitating residual disease after therapy. Over the last decade, assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) has increasingly been implemented in CLL trials. The predictive value of MRD status on survival outcomes has repeatedly been proven in the context of chemoimmunotherapy and cellular therapies. Recent data suggests a similar correlation for Bcl-2 inhibitor-based therapy. While the relevance of MRD assessment as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials is largely undisputed, its role in routine clinical practice has not yet been well defined. This review outlines current methods of MRD detection in CLL and summarizes MRD data from relevant trials. The significance of MRD testing in clinical studies and in routine patient care is assessed and new MRD-guided treatment strategies are discussed.

Identifiers

PMID31942542
PMCPMC6919470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.