ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Harnessing Immune Response in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sodium Overload-Related Molecular Subtypes and a Four-Gene Prognostic Signature Predict Survival, Immune Landscape, and Therapeutic Response in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Molecular carcinogenesis · 2026Article
- Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization and Multi-Omics Uncover Causal Serum Metabolites and Neuro-Related Mechanistic Pathways in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Causal relationship between immune cells and acute myeloid leukemia: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Bispecific and multispecific antibodies in oncology: opportunities and challenges.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Broadening the horizon: potential applications of CAR-T cells beyond current indications.Frontiers in immunology · 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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the results achieved with the evolution of conventional chemotherapy and the inclusion of targeted therapies in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), survival is still not satisfying, in particular in the setting of relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease or elderly/unfit patients. Among the most innovative therapeutic options, cellular therapy has shown great results in different hematological malignancies such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphomas, with several products already approved for clinical use. However, despite the great interest in also expanding the application of these new treatments to R/R AML, no product has been approved yet for clinical application. Furthermore, cellular therapy could indeed represent a powerful tool and an appealing alternative to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for ineligible patients. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the most recent clinical research exploring the effectiveness of cellular therapy in AML, moving from consolidated approaches such as post- transplant donor's lymphocytes infusion, to modern adoptive immunotherapies such as alloreactive NK cell infusions, engineered T and NK cells (CAR-T, CAR-NK) and novel platforms of T and NK cells engaging (i.e., BiTEs, DARTs and ANKET
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.