Observational studyBlood advances2023
Discordant pathologic diagnoses of myelodysplastic neoplasms and their implications for registries and therapies.
Observational study in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05074550 (Phase I, Open-Label, Multicentre, Dose-Escalation Study to Evaluate the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of A Single Intravenous PPMX-T003 in Polycythemia Vera), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Phase I, Open-Label, Multicentre, Dose-Escalation Study to Evaluate the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of A Single Intravenous PPMX-T003 in Polycythemia Vera
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical, Genetic, and Pathologic Variability in Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Precursor Conditions Across Race, Ethnicity, and Sex.American journal of hematology · 2026Observational
- A novel approach to defining progression in MDS and precursor myeloid conditions in the MDS Natural History Study.Blood advances · 2026Observational
- Reframing-renaming(?)-myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential.Leukemia · 2026Review
- Diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes: the classic and the novel.Haematologica · 2025Review
- Correlation between peripheral blood and bone marrow mutations among patients with MDS from the National MDS Study.Blood neoplasia · 2024Article
- How we diagnose Myelodysplastic syndromes.Frontiers in oncology · 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
24 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are a collection of hematopoietic disorders with widely variable prognoses and treatment options. Accurate pathologic diagnoses present challenges because of interobserver variability in interpreting morphology and quantifying dysplasia. We compared local clinical site diagnoses with central, adjudicated review from 918 participants enrolled in the ongoing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National MDS Natural History Study, a prospective observational cohort study of participants with suspected MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Locally, 264 (29%) were diagnosed as having MDS, 15 (2%) MDS/MPN overlap, 62 (7%) idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS), 0 (0%) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with <30% blasts, and 577 (63%) as other. Approximately one-third of cases were reclassified after central review, with 266 (29%) diagnosed as MDS, 45 (5%) MDS/MPN overlap, 49 (5%) ICUS, 15 (2%) AML with <30%, and 543 (59%) as other. Site miscoding errors accounted for more than half (53%) of the local misdiagnoses, leaving a true misdiagnosis rate of 15% overall, 21% for MDS. Therapies were reported in 37% of patients, including 43% of patients with MDS, 49% of patients with MDS/MPN, and 86% of patients with AML with <30% blasts. Treatment rates were lower (25%) in cases with true discordance in diagnosis compared with those for whom local and central diagnoses agreed (40%), and receipt of inappropriate therapy occurred in 7% of misdiagnosed cases. Discordant diagnoses were frequent, which has implications for the accuracy of study-related and national registries and can lead to inappropriate therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT05074550.
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.