Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35320468›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2022

New Approaches to Myelodysplastic Syndrome Treatment.

Alexandre Bazinet, Guillermo Montalban Bravo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Clinical Applications of Ligand Traps Targeting Activin Type II Receptors.Anti-inflammatory & anti-allergy agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexandre BazinetDepartment of Leukemia, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 428, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5538-4943
Guillermo Montalban BravoDepartment of Leukemia, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Box 428, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. gmontalban1@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementThe treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) begins with risk stratification using a validated tool such as the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) or its revised version (IPSS-R). This divides patients into lower- and higher- risk categories. Although treatment objectives in lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) have traditionally been directed at improving cytopenias (usually anemia) as well as quality of life, recent data supports a potential role for early intervention in delaying transfusion dependency. In addition, careful individualized risk stratification incorporating clinical, cytogenetic, and mutational data might help identify patients at higher-than-expected risk for progression. Given the need for supportive care with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions leading to iron overload, iron chelation should be considered for patients with heavy transfusion requirements at risk for end-organ complications. For patients with LR-MDS and isolated anemia, no high-risk features, and endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) levels below 500 U/L, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can be attempted to improve anemia. Some LR-MDS patient subgroups may also benefit from specific therapies including luspatercept (MDS with ring sideroblasts), lenalidomide (MDS with deletion 5q), or immunosuppressive therapy (hypocellular MDS). LR-MDS patients failing the above options, or those with multiple cytopenias and/or higher-risk features, can be considered for oral low-dose hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy. Alternatively, these patients may be enrolled on a clinical trial with promising agents targeting the transforming-growth factor beta (TGF-β) pathway, the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) pathway, telomerase activity, inflammatory signaling, or the splicing machinery. In higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS), therapy seeks to modify the natural history of the disease and prolong survival. Eligible patients should be considered for curative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT). Despite promising novel combinations, the HMAs azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DAC) are still the standard of care for these patients, with intensive chemotherapy-based approaches being a potential option in a small subset of patients. Individuals who fail to respond or progress after HMA experience dismal outcomes and represent a major unmet clinical need. Such patients should be treated as part of a clinical trial if possible. Experimental agents to consider include venetoclax, myeloid cell leukemia 1 (MCL-1) inhibitors, eprenetapopt, CPX-351, immunotherapies (directed towards CD47, TIM3, or CD70), interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) inhibitors, pevonedistat, seclidemstat, and eltanexor. In this review, we extensively discuss the current landscape of experimental therapies for both LR- and HR-MDS.

Indexed as

AnemiaAntineoplastic AgentsMyelodysplastic SyndromesAzacitidineHumansLenalidomideQuality of LifeAntineoplastic AgentsAzacitidineLenalidomideExperimental therapiesHypomethylating agentsMagrolimabMyelodysplastic syndromesTargeted therapiesVenetoclax

Identifiers

PMID35320468
OpenAlexW4221122142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.