ArticleCancer medicine2021
Improved survival with enasidenib versus standard of care in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia associated with IDH2 mutations using historical data and propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting the cancer metabolism-immunity interface: update and perspectives.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Olutasidenib and Ivosidenib in Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1-Mutated Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Concordance between European medicine agency good clinical practice inspections and medical literature: a meta-research survey.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Deconvoluting clonal and cellular architecture in IDH-mutant acute myeloid leukemia.Cell stem cell · 2025Article
- Unlocking the Heterogeneity in Acute Leukaemia: Dissection of Clonal Architecture and Metabolic Properties for Clinical Interventions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Emerging and Future Targeted Therapies for Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Targeting the Leukemia Stem Cells.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Evaluating the Performance of High-Dimensional Propensity Scores Compared with Standard Propensity Scores for Comparing Antihypertensive Therapies in the CPRD GOLD Database.Cardiology and therapy · 2023Article
- Impact of IDH1 and IDH2 mutational subgroups in AML patients after allogeneic stem cell transplantation.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2022Article
- Survival, response rates, and post-transplant outcomes in patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia aged 60-75 treated with high intensity chemotherapy vs. lower intensity targeted therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Improved survival with enasidenib versus standard of care in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia associated with IDH2 mutations using historical data and propensity score matching analysis.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 17 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe present study evaluated the relative survival benefits associated with enasidenib and current standard of care (SoC) therapies for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutation who are ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
methodsPropensity score matching (PSM) analysis compared survival outcomes observed with enasidenib 100 mg daily in the phase I/II AG221-C-001 trial and SoC outcomes obtained from a real-world chart review of patients in France.
resultsBefore matching, enasidenib (n = 195) was associated with numerically improved overall survival (OS) relative to SoC (n = 80; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.11). After matching and adjusting for covariates (n = 78 per group), mortality risk was significantly lower with enasidenib than with SoC (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97). The median OS was 9.26 months for enasidenib (95% CI, 7.72-13.24) and 4.76 months for SoC (95% CI, 3.81-8.21). Results remained robust across all sensitivity analyses conducted.
conclusionsPSM analyses indicate that enasidenib significantly prolongs survival relative to SoC among patients with R/R AML and an IDH2 mutation who are ineligible for HSCT. Future prospective studies are needed to validate these findings using other data sources and to assess the comparative efficacy of enasidenib for other treatment outcomes.
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.