ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2021
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation overcomes the poor prognosis in MLL-rearranged solid tumor therapy related-acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Recent Developments and Evolving Therapeutic Strategies in KMT2A-Rearranged Acute Leukemia.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MLL rearrangement is very common in solid tumor therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML). To investigated the prognosis of solid tumor MLL t-AML, 157 patients were divided into 3 groups: non-MLL t-AML (n=41), MLL t-AML (n=18) and MLL de novo AML (n=98). Of the 150 patients underwent anti-leukemia therapy, the complete remission (CR) was similar in MLL t-AML, non-MLL t-AML and MLL de novo AML (P=0.251). 3-years overall survival (OS) was 37.5%, 21.5% and 20.4% (P=0.046), and leukemia-free survival (LFS) was 28.0%, 32.2% and 22.7% (P=0.031), and the incidence of relapse was 30.0%, 50.4% and 53.5% (P=0.382), respectively, in the three groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that MLL t-AML was a risk factor while allo-HSCT was a protective factor for OS, LFS, and relapse (P<0.001, P<0.001 and P=0.005) (P=0.002, P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). The 3-years OS was 0%, 17.9% and 2.3% (P=0.038), and LFS was 0%, 23.1% and 3.3% (P=0.017), and relapse was 100%, 53.1% and 74.4% (P=0.001), respectively, among three groups in patients undergoing chemotherapy alone, while OS was 64.3%, 52.7% and 40.7% (P=0.713), LFS was 60.0%, 48.8% and 37.0% (P=0.934), and relapse was 25.0%, 47.4% and 47.5% (P=0.872), respectively, among these groups in patients undergoing allo-HSCT. Intriguingly, MLL t-AML was no longer risk factor for relapse and LFS (P=0.882 and P=0.484, respectively), and it became a favorable factor for OS (P=0.011) in patients undergoing allo-HSCT. In conclusion, MLL t-AML had poor prognosis compared with non-MLL t-AML and MLL de novo AML, but allo-HSCT might overcome the poor prognosis of MLL t-AML.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33948382PMC8085874W3159630531What 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.