Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32559295›Full record

SynthesisBlood advances2020

First-line imatinib vs second- and third-generation TKIs for chronic-phase CML: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Claudia Vener, Rita Banzi, Federico Ambrogi, Annalisa Ferrero, Giuseppe Saglio, Gabriella Pravettoni, Milena Sant

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Blood advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Circular RNAs and Cancers.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia VenerDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Rita BanziCentre for Health Regulatory Policies, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Federico AmbrogiG. A. Maccacaro Laboratory, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Annalisa FerreroMartini Hospital, Turin, Italy; and.
Giuseppe SaglioDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Gabriella PravettoniDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Milena SantAnalytical Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit, Department of Research, National Tumour Institute of Milan, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Foundation, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITOspedale Martini · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imatinib, the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), improves overall survival (OS), but the introduction of newer TKIs requires the definition of the optimal first-line TKI for newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic-phase (CP) CML. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compares the efficacy and safety of imatinib vs second-generation (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) and third-generation TKIs (ponatinib) in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ CP CML, concentrating on OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and hematological and nonhematological adverse events. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Seven RCTs published between 1990 and 2019 (involving 3262 participants) satisfied the eligibility criteria. Two RCTs (imatinib vs nilotinib and imatinib vs dasatinib) found no difference in 5-year OS or PFS. Second- and third-generation TKIs improved 3-month major molecular responses (relative risk [RR], 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.20-8.32) and other efficacy outcomes, decreased accelerated/blastic-phase transformations (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.74), but were associated with more cases of thrombocytopenia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20-2.05), cardiovascular events (RR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.49-4.33), and pancreatic (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.32-3.96) and hepatic effects (RR, 3.51; 95% CI 1.55-7.92). GRADE showed that the certainty of the evidence ranged from high to moderate. This study shows that, in comparison with imatinib, second- and third-generation TKIs improve clinical responses, but the safer toxicity profile of imatinib may make it a better option for patients with comorbidities.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsLeukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL PositiveLeukemia, Myeloid, Chronic-PhaseAdultDasatinibHumansImatinib MesylateAntineoplastic AgentsDasatinibImatinib Mesylate

Identifiers

PMID32559295
PMCPMC7322957
OpenAlexW3036412813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.