ArticleAnnals of hematology2020
Real-world risk assessment and treatment initiation among patients with myelofibrosis at community oncology practices in the United States.
Article in Annals of hematology, 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A model to estimate spleen volume from palpated spleen length in patients with myelofibrosis.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Ruxolitinib Treatment in Patients With IPSS Intermediate-1-Risk Myelofibrosis: Interim Analysis From an Italian, Prospective Study (ROMEI).Hematological oncology · 2026Observational
- Article
- Real-world treatment patterns and health care resource use for patients with myelofibrosis: results from the METER study.Blood advances · 2025Observational
- Real-World Use of Ruxolitinib in Patients with Myelofibrosis and Anemia or Thrombocytopenia at Diagnosis.Acta haematologica · 2025Article
- Case Report: A novel t(15;17)(q24;q11.2) translocation involvingFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Prognostic and Predictive Models in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024Review
- Management of Patients with Early Myelofibrosis: A Discussion of Best Practices.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024Review
- Epidemiology and disease characteristics of myelofibrosis: a comparative analysis between Italy and global perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Contemporary Review and Molecular Landscape.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Advances in management of primary myelofibrosis and polycythaemia vera: Implications in clinical practice.EJHaem · 2023Review
- A prognostic model to predict survival after 6 months of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis.Blood advances · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm with a prevalence of 4 to 6 per 100,000 people in the USA. Treatment recommendations are risk-adapted. This study was conducted to evaluate how physicians risk-stratify patients at the time of MF diagnosis, the accuracy of the risk stratification, and its effect on treatment selection. Medical charts were reviewed at US community hematology/oncology practices in the Cardinal Health Oncology Provider Extended Network; patient clinical characteristics, risk stratification, and treatment data were collected. Physician-assigned risk categorizations were compared with data-derived risk categorizations based on the International Prognostic Scoring System, the system recommended at diagnosis. A total of 491 patients diagnosed with MF between 2012 and 2016 (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 65.4 [11.8] years; 54.8% male, 69.2% with primary MF) were included. Risk categorization was not assigned for 30.1% of patients. Of the patients with a physician-assigned risk categorization (n = 343), a scoring system was used in 49.9%. Compared with data-derived risk categorizations, 42.9% of physician-assigned risk categorizations were incorrect; 85.0% of incorrect physician-assigned risk categorizations were underestimations. Notably, 38.5% of patients with data-derived intermediate- or high-risk categorizations did not initiate treatment within 120 days of diagnosis. Among patients with data-derived intermediate risk, those with an underestimated physician-assigned risk categorization were significantly less likely to receive treatment within 120 days of diagnosis (51.6% with correct physician-assigned categorization vs 18.5% with underestimated risk categorization; P = 0.0023). These results highlight the gap in risk assessment and the importance of accurate risk stratification at diagnosis.
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.