Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36939402›Full record

ArticleBlood advances2023

Assessment of acute myeloid leukemia molecular measurable residual disease testing in an interlaboratory study.

Stuart Scott, Richard Dillon, Christian Thiede, Sadia Sadiq, Ashley Cartwright, Hazel J Clouston, Debbie Travis, Katya Mokretar, Nicola Potter, Andrew Chantry and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Use of Measurable Residual Disease to Improve Outcomes.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Stuart ScottLaboratory Medicine, UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8182-3057
Richard DillonDepartment of Haematology, Guy's International Centre of Excellence in Myeloid Disorders, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9333-5296
Christian ThiedeDepartment of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1241-2048
Sadia SadiqLaboratory Medicine, UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Ashley CartwrightLaboratory Medicine, UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3516-9733
Hazel J CloustonLaboratory Medicine, UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Debbie TravisLaboratory Medicine, UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Katya MokretarCancer genetics, Guy's Hospital, South East Genomics Laboratory Hub, Synnovis, London, United Kingdom.
Nicola PotterDepartment of Medical & Molecular Genetics, King's College, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew ChantryDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2797-7626
Liam WhitbyLaboratory Medicine, UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5218-2593
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBGuy's Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DE

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29806
6 · The paper itself

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

Leukemia, Myeloid, AcuteHumansLongitudinal StudiesNeoplasm, ResidualNuclear ProteinsNuclear Proteins

Identifiers

PMID36939402
PMCPMC10368676
OpenAlexW4327898538

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.