ArticleBMC cancer2023
Outcome and prognostic factors of CBF pediatric AML patients with t(8;21) differ from patients with inv(16).
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Landscape of Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Pediatric Patient-Age-Related Correlations: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond the Favorable-Risk Label: Sequential Measurable Residual Disease andAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical profiling of AML1::ETO and KIT exon 17 mutation in pediatric AML by high-throughput drug sensitivity.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- KIT and FLT3-ITD mutations do not predict outcomes in pediatric core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: findings from the C-HUANAN-AML-15 multicenter cohort study.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Disrupting the CBFβ-SMMHC-RUNX1 oncogenic protein-protein interaction in inv(16) AML: from fusion biology to targeted therapy.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Fusion-specific co-mutational architecture and treatment-response associations in pediatric core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia: a multicenter exome-profiled cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Nomogram-based prediction models for clinical outcomes in pediatricFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal single-cell analysis reveals treatment-resistant stem and mast cells with potential treatments for pediatric AML.Leukemia · 2025Article
- Predictive Model of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin Response in Childhood Acute Myeloid Leukemia on Event-Free Survival: Data Analysis Based on Trial AAML0531.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing the efficacy and safety of venetoclax combined with hypomethylating agents versus intensive chemotherapy as induction therapy in newly diagnosed core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia patients.Blood cancer journal · 2025Article
- Molecular genetics profiling of core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia in pediatrics.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2025Review
- Impact of measurable residual disease in combination with CD19 on postremission therapy choices for adult t(8;21) acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the outcome and prognostic factors between inv(16) and t(8;21) disrupt core binding factor (CBF) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
methodsThe clinical characteristic, probability of achieving complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) were compared between inv(16) and (8;21).
resultsThe CR rate was 95.2%, 10-year OS was 84.4% and CIR was 29.4%. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with t(8;21) had significant lower 10-year OS and CIR than patients with inv(16). Unexpectedly, there was a trend for pediatric AML receiving five courses cytarabine to have a lower CIR than four courses cytarabine (19.8% vs 29.3%, P = 0.06). Among the cohort of no-gemtuzumab ozogamicin(GO) treatment, inv (16) patients showed a similar 10-year OS (78.9% vs 83.5%; P = 0.69) and an inferior outcome on 10-year CIR (58.6% vs 28.9%, P = 0.01) than those patients with t(8;21). In contrast, inv (16) and t(8;21) patients receiving GO treatment had comparable OS (OS: 90.5% vs. 86.5%, P = 0.66) as well as CIR (40.4% vs. 21.4%, P = 0.13).
conclusionOur data demonstrated that more cumulative cytarabine exposure could improve the outcome of childhood patients with t(8;21), while GO treatment was beneficial to the pediatric patients with inv(16).
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.