Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33368536›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of hematology2021

Determination of fitness and therapeutic options in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Jorge E Cortes, Priyanka Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of hematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Jorge E CortesGeorgia Cancer Center, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8636-1071
Priyanka MehtaDepartment of Haematology, University Hospitals Bristol, NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of older patients with AML remains challenging. Although age, performance status, and comorbidities are commonly employed to determine fitness for intensive treatment, several studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with treatment in older and classically unfit patients, highlighting the importance of other disease-related and patient-related factors that have prognostic value for treatment outcome in AML. However, consistent and objective assessments for fitness are lacking. Multi-parameter geriatric assessment tools offer more comprehensive evaluation, but are limited by the required resources and lack of standardization and consensus regarding prognostic value. These assessments are particularly important considering the emerging new AML therapies that represent a spectrum of intensities. Patients should therefore be evaluated holistically for fitness to receive a specific treatment, with the aim of providing individualized care, and such definitions of fitness should also consistently be applied to clinical trials. This review will examine evolving criteria for the determination of fitness among AML patients and discuss treatment options for older and/or unfit patients with AML.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicComorbidityDisease ManagementFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansKarnofsky Performance StatusLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsPatient SelectionPhysical ExaminationPrecision MedicineAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID33368536
PMCPMC7986910

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.