ArticleCancer medicine2020
Regimen-intensity per count-recovery and hospitalization index: A new tool to assign regimen intensity for AML.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multisite 11-year experience of less-intensive vs intensive therapies in acute myeloid leukemia.Blood · 2021Trial
- Observational
- Regimen-intensity per count-recovery and hospitalization index: A new tool to assign regimen intensity for AML.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-intensity regimens have been increasingly used to treat older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Recent studies, however, suggest older patients can tolerate and potentially benefit from intensive chemotherapeutic regimens. The ability to compare the utility of varying regimen intensities in AML is hindered by the lack of a standardized definition of "regimen intensity."
methodsWe conducted a survey asking AML physicians which of 38 regimens they would consider intensive vs less-intensive. Electronic medical records of 592 patients receiving many of these regimens were used to design a model characterizing regimens as intensive vs less-intensive as identified by ≥75% physician consensus. Variables included frequency and length of hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, severe gastrointestinal toxicities, time to nadir, and recovery of neutrophil/platelet count.
resultsPhysicians agreed at a rate of 75%-100% on the assignment of degree of intensity to the majority (n = 28) of these regimens, while the level of agreement was <75% for the remaining 10 regimens (26%). Logistic regression analyses identified number and length of hospitalizations to be significantly associated with intensive regimens and count recovery with less-intensive regimens. We created the "regimen-intensity per count-recovery and hospitalization" (RICH) index with an AUC of 0.87. Independent model validation yielded an AUC of 0.75.
conclusionsWe were able to generate a novel model that defines regimen intensity for many therapies used to treat AML. Results facilitate a future randomized study comparing intensive vs less-intensive regimens.
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.