ArticleBlood advances2022
Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly "promising"?
Article in Blood advances, 2022. 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.
- Inducing tumor-intrinsic innate immune response to break cancer immunotherapy resistance.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Are We Ready For "Triplet" Therapy in Higher-Risk MDS?Clinical hematology international · 2023Article
- Evaluating complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) as a response criterion in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).Blood cancer journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTIs) for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) have low complete remission rates and are not curative. Early DNMTI combination clinical trials in HR-MDS are often termed "promising," but many randomized trials subsequently failed to show benefit. Clearer understanding of when a combination is likely to improve upon DNMTI monotherapy would inform randomized studies. We reviewed MDS azacitidine or decitabine monotherapy studies. We collected baseline demographics including International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk, DNMTI, disease characteristics; and response variables including survival and marrow and hematologic responses. Aggregate estimates across studies were calculated using meta-analyses techniques. Using a binomial design, we estimated the necessary operating characteristics to design a phase 2 study showing improved efficacy of a combination over monotherapy. Among 1908 patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (n = 464; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.26): 267 complete response (CR, 14%), 68 partial response (4%), and 129 marrow complete remission (7%). Among 1604 patients for whom a hematologic response was reported, 476 (30%; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32) reported hematologic improvement (HI). More patients treated with azacitidine achieved HI (38%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.41) compared with decitabine (15%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.19), whereas the marrow ORR rate was higher with decitabine (29%; 95% CI, 0.26-0.33) compared with azacitidine (21%; 95% CI, 0.19-0.23). CR rates were similar between DNMTIs: 13% with azacitidine and 16% with decitabine. Variables that influence MDS response include the specific DNMTI backbone and the distribution of IPSS risk of patients enrolled on a trial. Considering these factors can help identify which early combination approaches are worth assessing in larger randomized trials.
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.