Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32382773›Full record

ArticleAnnals of hematology2020

Real-world risk assessment and treatment initiation among patients with myelofibrosis at community oncology practices in the United States.

Srdan Verstovsek, Jingbo Yu, Jonathan K Kish, Dilan Paranagama, Jill Kaufman, Callan Myerscough, Michael R Grunwald, Philomena Colucci, Ruben Mesa

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prognostic and Predictive Models in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Contemporary Review and Molecular Landscape.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Srdan VerstovsekDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. sverstov@mdanderson.org.
Jingbo YuIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE, USA.
Jonathan K KishCardinal Health Specialty Solutions, Dublin, OH, USA.
Dilan ParanagamaIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE, USA.
Jill KaufmanCardinal Health Specialty Solutions, Dublin, OH, USA.
Callan MyerscoughCardinal Health Specialty Solutions, Dublin, OH, USA.
Michael R GrunwaldLevine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Philomena ColucciIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE, USA.
Ruben MesaUT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Incyte (United States) · USCardinal Health (United States) · USLevine Cancer Institute · USThe Ohio State University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary MyelofibrosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUnited StatesChart reviewIPSSMyelofibrosisRisk stratificationTreatment patterns

Identifiers

PMID32382773
PMCPMC7536164
OpenAlexW3023532130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.