Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36322818›Full record

ArticleBlood advances2023

Clinical outcomes associated with NPM1 mutations in patients with relapsed or refractory AML.

Ghayas C Issa, Aram Bidikian, Sangeetha Venugopal, Marina Konopleva, Courtney D DiNardo, Tapan M Kadia, Gautam Borthakur, Elias Jabbour, Naveen Pemmaraju, Musa Yilmaz and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Ziftomenib in Relapsed or RefractoryJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Haematologica · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

25 authors.

Ghayas C IssaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-4339-8683
Aram BidikianDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-5856-5926
Sangeetha VenugopalDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Marina KonoplevaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-9347-2212
Courtney D DiNardoDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-9003-0390
Tapan M KadiaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Gautam BorthakurDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Elias JabbourDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Naveen PemmarajuDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-1670-6513
Musa YilmazDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Nicholas J ShortDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-2983-2738
Abhishek MaitiDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Koji SasakiDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-9140-0610
Lucia MasarovaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-6624-4196
Sherry PierceDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Koichi TakahashiDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Guilin TangDepartment of Hematopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Sanam LoghaviDepartment of Hematopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-8980-3202
Keyur PatelDepartment of Hematopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-5081-2427
Michael AndreeffDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-1144-1958
Kapil BhallaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Guillermo Garcia-ManeroDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Farhad RavandiDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Hagop KantarjianDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Naval DaverDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-7103-373X

Funding

Paul Calabresi Clinical Oncology AwardK12CA088084 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI David S. Hong, Scott Kopetz · 2000 to 2026
$14.0M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA088084
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutations in Nucleophosmin 1 (NPM1) are associated with a favorable prognosis in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), however, their prognostic impact in relapsed/refractory (R/R) settings are unknown. In a retrospective analysis, we identified 206 patients (12%) with mutated NPM1 (NPM1c) and compared their outcomes to 1516 patients (88%) with NPM1 wild-type (NPM1wt). NPM1c was associated with higher rates of complete remission or complete remission with incomplete count recovery compared with NPM1wt following each line of salvage therapy (first salvage, 56% vs 37%; P < .0001; second salvage, 33% vs 22%; P = .02; third salvage, 24% vs 14%; P = .02). However, NPM1 mutations had no impact on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with each salvage therapy with a median OS following salvage 1, 2 or 3 therapies in NPM1c vs NPM1wt of 7.8 vs 6.0; 5.3 vs 4.1; and 3.5 vs 3.6 months, respectively. Notably, the addition of venetoclax to salvage regimens in patients with NPM1c improved RFS and OS (median RFS, 15.8 vs 4.6 months; P = .05; median OS, 14.7 vs 5.9 months; P = .02). In conclusion, NPM1 mutational status has a minimal impact on prognosis in relapsed or refractory AML; therefore, novel treatment strategies are required to improve outcomes in this entity.

Indexed as

Leukemia, Myeloid, AcuteNuclear ProteinsHumansMutationNucleophosminRetrospective StudiesNPM1 protein, humanNuclear ProteinsNucleophosmin

Identifiers

PMID36322818
PMCPMC10027507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.