ArticleBlood advances2023
Assessment of acute myeloid leukemia molecular measurable residual disease testing in an interlaboratory study.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Landscape of Measurable Residual Disease in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: From Molecular Detection to Clinical Practice.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Minimal Residual Disease Detection: Implications for Clinical Diagnosis and Cancer Patient Treatment.MedComm · 2025Review
- Measurable residual disease monitoring in AML: Prospects for therapeutic decision-making and new drug development.American journal of hematology · 2025Review
- Article
- Molecular measurable residual disease monitoring and transplant indications in NPM1 mutated acute myeloid leukemia.Bone marrow transplantation · 2025Review
- Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Use of Measurable Residual Disease to Improve Outcomes.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Measurable Residual Disease Detection in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Current Challenges and Future Directions.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Criteria for Diagnosis and Molecular Monitoring of NPM1-Mutated AML.Blood cancer discovery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The European LeukaemiaNet (ELN) measurable residual disease (MRD) working group has published consensus guidelines to standardize molecular genetic MRD testing of the t(8;21)(q22;q22.1) RUNX1::RUNX1T1, inv(16)(p13.1q22) CBFB::MYH11, t(15;17)(q24.1;q21.2) PML::RARA, and NPM1 type A markers. A study featuring 29 international laboratories was performed to assess interlaboratory variation in testing and the subsequent interpretation of results, both crucial to patient safety. Most participants in this study were able to detect, accurately quantify, and correctly interpret MRD testing results, with a level of proficiency expected from a clinical trial or standard-of-care setting. However, a few testing and interpretive errors were identified that, in a patient setting, would have led to misclassification of patient outcomes and inappropriate treatment pathways being followed. Of note, a high proportion of participants reported false-positive results in the NPM1 marker-negative sample. False-positive results may have clinical consequences, committing patients to unneeded additional chemotherapy and/or transplant with the attendant risk of morbidity and mortality, which therefore highlights the need for ongoing external quality assessment/proficiency testing in this area. Most errors identified in the study were related to the interpretation of results. It was noted that the ELN guidance lacks clarity for certain clinical scenarios and highlights the requirement for urgent revision of the guidelines to elucidate these issues and related educational efforts around the revisions to ensure effective dissemination.
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.