ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Prediction of Survival and Prognosis Migration from Gold-Standard Scores in Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Ruxolitinib Applying the RR6 Prognostic Model in a Monocentric Real-Life Setting.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indications for Autologous and Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Adults: State of the Art.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Hepcidin as a Molecular Hub of Iron Homeostasis: From BMP-SMAD Signaling to Therapeutic Modulation.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- [External validation and incremental value assessment of the RR6 prognostic model in Chinese myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib: focusing on overall survival].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2026Article
- Revised "iRR6" model in intermediate-1 risk myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib.Cancer · 2025Observational
- Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant for Myelofibrosis and Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Contemporary Review.American journal of hematology · 2025Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Approaches for Anemia in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2025Review
- Review
- AIPSS-MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Myelofibrosis and Survival Prognostic Models: A Journey between Past and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Polycythemia Vera: Barriers to and Strategies for Optimal Management.Blood and lymphatic cancer : targets and therapy · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The wide use of ruxolitinib, approved for treating primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF), has revolutionized the landscape of these diseases. This molecule can reduce spleen volume and constitutional symptoms, guaranteeing patients a better quality of life and survival or even a valid bridge to bone marrow transplantation. Despite a rapid response within the first 3 to 6 months of treatment, some patients fail to achieve a significant benefit or lose early response. After ruxolitinib failure, new drugs are available to provide an additional therapeutic option for these patients. However, the correct timing point for deciding on a therapy shift is still an open challenge. Recently, a clinical prognostic score named RR6 (Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months) was proposed to determine survival after 6 months of treatment with ruxolitinib in patients affected by MF. We applied this model to a cohort of consecutive patients treated at our center to validate the results obtained in terms of median overall survival (mOS): for the low-risk class, mOS was not reached (as in the training cohort); for the intermediate-risk, mOS was 52 months (95% CI 39-106); for the high-risk, it was 33 (95% 8.5-59). Moreover, in addition to the other studies present in the literature, we evaluated how the new RR6 score could better identify primary MF patients at high risk, with a slight or no agreement compared to DIPSS, contrary to what occurs in secondary MF. Thus, we were able to confirm the predictive power of the RR6 model in our series, which might be of help in guiding future therapeutic choices.
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.