ArticleBlood cancer journal2022
A scoring system for AML patients aged 70 years or older, eligible for intensive chemotherapy: a study based on a large European data set using the DATAML, SAL, and PETHEMA registries.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival after intensive therapy or clofarabine in fit older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: E2906 phase 3 trial.Blood neoplasia · 2026Trial
- Mutations in CHIP-associated genes at myeloid neoplasm diagnosis and risk of cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Multi-omics integration of molecular genetics, cytogenetics and immunophenotyping: a novel prognostic model for immune landscape characterization and outcome prediction in Chinese patients with acute myeloid leukemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- How to Read a Next-Generation Sequencing Report for AML and MDS? What Hematologists Need to Know.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Diverse real-life outcomes after intensive risk-adapted therapy for 1034 AML patients from the CETLAM Group.Blood cancer journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Optimizing Treatment Options for Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Older Patients with Comorbidities.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 17 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a context of therapeutic revolution in older adults with AML, it is becoming increasingly important to select patients for the various treatment options by taking account of short-term efficacy and toxicity as well as long-term survival. Here, the data from three European registries for 1,199 AML patients aged 70 years or older treated with intensive chemotherapy were used to develop a prognostic scoring system. The median follow-up was 50.8 months. In the training set of 636 patients, age, performance status, secondary AML, leukocytosis, and cytogenetics, as well as NPM1 mutations (without FLT3-ITD), were all significantly associated with overall survival, albeit not to the same degree. These factors were used to develop a score that predicts long-term overall survival. Three risk-groups were identified: a lower, intermediate and higher-risk score with predicted 5-year overall survival (OS) probabilities of ≥12% (n = 283, 51%; median OS = 18 months), 3-12% (n = 226, 41%; median OS = 9 months) and <3% (n = 47, 8%; median OS = 3 months), respectively. This scoring system was also significantly associated with complete remission, early death and relapse-free survival; performed similarly in the external validation cohort (n = 563) and showed a lower false-positive rate than previously published scores. The European Scoring System ≥70, easy for routine calculation, predicts long-term survival in older AML patients considered for intensive chemotherapy.
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.