ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy
Immunophenotypic markers for the evaluation of minimal/measurable residual disease in acute megakaryoblastic leukemia.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aberrant polyploidization pathways in megakaryocytes as therapeutic targets in leukemia.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Novel perceptions and insights into the rare hematologic malignancy of acute megakaryocytic leukemia: a multicenter clinical retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute megakaryoblastic leukemia is characterized by heterogeneous biology and clinical behavior. Immunophenotypic characteristics include the expression of megakaryocytic differentiation markers (e.g. CD41, CD42a, CD42b, CD61) associated with immaturity markers (CD34, CD117, HLA-DR) and myeloid markers (e.g. CD13, CD33) and even with lymphoid cross-lineage markers (e.g. CD7, CD56). Although the diagnostic immunophenotype has already been well described, given the rarity of the disease, its immunophenotypic heterogeneity and post-therapeutic instability, there is no consensus on the combination of monoclonal markers to detect minimal/measurable residual disease (MRD). Currently, MRD is an important tool for assessing treatment efficacy and prognostic risk. In this study, we evaluated the immunophenotypic profile of MRD in a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with acute megakaryoblastic leukemia, to identify which markers, positive or negative, were more stable after treatment and which could be useful for MRD evaluation. The expression profile of each marker was evaluated in sequential MRD samples. In conclusion, the markers evaluated in this study can be combined in an MRD immunophenotypic panel to investigate for megakaryoblastic leukemia. Although this study is retrospective and some data are missing, the information obtained may contribute to prospective studies to validate more specific strategies in the detection of MRD in acute megakaryoblastic leukemia.
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.