Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34232303›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Association Between Measurable Residual Disease in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia and First Remission, Treatment, and Outcomes.

Sijian Yu, Zhiping Fan, Liping Ma, Yu Wang, Fen Huang, Qing Zhang, Jiafu Huang, Shunqing Wang, Na Xu, Li Xuan and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

25 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Sijian YuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiping FanDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Liping MaDepartment of Hematology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Yu WangPeking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing, China.
Fen HuangDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qing ZhangDepartment of Hematology, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Jiafu HuangDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shunqing WangDepartment of Hematology, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Na XuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Li XuanDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Mujun XiongDepartment of Hematology, The First People's Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, China.
Lijie HanDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Zhiqiang SunDepartment of Hematology, Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Hongyu ZhangDepartment of Hematology, Shenzhen Hospital of Peking University, Shenzhen, China.
Hui LiuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Guopan YuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Pengcheng ShiDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jun XuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Meiqing WuDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Ziwen GuoDepartment of Hematology, Zhongshan People's Hospital, Zhongshan, China.
Yiying XiongDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Chongyang DuanDepartment of Biostatistics, Southern Medical University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China.
Jing SunDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qifa LiuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Southern Medical University · CNNanfang Hospital · CNChenzhou First People's Hospital · CNChongqing Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CNGuangdong Provincial People's Hospital · CNGuangxi Medical University · CNGuangzhou First People's Hospital · CNPeking University · CNPeking University Shenzhen Hospital · CNSouthern Medical University Shenzhen Hospital · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNZhongshan People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Measurable residual disease (MRD) is widely used as a therapy-stratification factor for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but the association of dynamic MRD with postremission treatment (PRT) in patients with intermediate-risk AML (IR-AML) has not been well investigated. Objective: To investigate PRT choices based on dynamic MRD in patients with IR-AML. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examined 549 younger patients with de novo IR-AML in the South China Hematology Alliance database during the period from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2016, including 154 who received chemotherapy, 116 who received an autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT), and 279 who received an allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT). Subgroup analyses were performed according to dynamic MRD after the first, second, and third courses of chemotherapy. The end point of the last follow-up was August 31, 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from December 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Exposures: Receipt of chemotherapy, auto-SCT, or allo-SCT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse and leukemia-free survival. Results: Subgroup analyses were performed for 549 participants (314 male participants [57.2%]; median age, 37 years [range, 14-60 years]) according to the dynamics of MRD after 1, 2, or 3 courses of chemotherapy. Comparable cumulative incidences of relapse, leukemia-free survival, and overall survival were observed among participants who had no MRD after 1, 2, or 3 courses of chemotherapy. Participants who underwent chemotherapy and those who underwent auto-SCT had better graft-vs-host disease-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) than those who underwent allo-SCT (chemotherapy: hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.14-0.90]; P = .03; auto-SCT: HR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.58]; P = .01). Among participants with MRD after 1 course of chemotherapy but no MRD after 2 or 3 courses, those who underwent auto-SCT and allo-SCT showed lower cumulative incidence of relapse (auto-SCT: HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.78]; P = .01; allo-SCT: HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02-0.24]; P < .001), better leukemia-free survival (auto-SCT: HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.10-0.64]; P = .004; allo-SCT: HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09-0.46]; P < .001), and overall survival (auto-SCT: HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.08-0.64]; P = .005; allo-SCT: HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.11-0.59]; P = .001) vs chemotherapy. In addition, auto-SCT showed better GRFS than allo-SCT (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.98]; P = .04) in this group. Among participants with MRD after 1 or 2 courses of chemotherapy but no MRD after 3 courses, allo-SCT had superior cumulative incidence of relapse (HR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.06-0.94]; P = .04) and leukemia-free survival (HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.05-0.68]; P = .01) compared with chemotherapy, but no advantageous cumulative incidence of relapse (HR, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.02-1.42]; P = .10) and leukemia-free survival (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.05-1.08]; P = .06) compared with auto-SCT. Among participants with MRD after 3 courses of chemotherapy, allo-SCT had superior cumulative incidences of relapse, leukemia-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy (relapse: HR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08-0.33]; P < .001; leukemia-free survival: HR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.10-0.35]; P < .001; overall survival: HR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.15-0.55]; P < .001) and auto-SCT (relapse: HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.12-0.53]; P < .001; leukemia-free survival: HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.18-0.73]; P = .004; overall survival: HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.26-0.94]; P = .04). Among participants with recurrent MRD, allo-SCT was also associated with advantageous cumulative incidence of relapse, leukemia-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy (relapse: HR, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.04-0.33]; P < .001; leukemia-free survival: HR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10-0.56]; P = .001; overall survival: HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.75]; P = .01) and auto-SCT (relapse: HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.09-0.81]; P = .02; leukemia-free survival: HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.12-0.76]; P = .01; overall survival: HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.10-0.70]; P = .007). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that clinical decisions based on dynamic MRD might be associated with improved therapy stratification and optimized PRT for patients with IR-AML. Prospective multicenter trials are needed to further validate these findings.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChinaCohort StudiesFemaleHematologyHumansLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm, ResidualOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesRegistriesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34232303
PMCPMC8264648
OpenAlexW3180146954

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.