ArticleCancer medicine2024
Comparison of clinical outcomes of several risk stratification tools in newly diagnosed AML patients: A real-world evidence in our current therapeutic era.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background of the studyAML classification tools have been developed to stratify the risk at AML diagnosis. There is a need to evaluate these tools in the current therapeutic era. COHORT CHARACTERISTICS: In this retrospective study, we compared five classifiers: ELN 2017, ELN 2022, ALFA classifier, Papaemmanuil et al. classifier, and Lindsley et al. classifier, in a real-life cohort of 281 patients newly diagnosed for AML in Nice University Hospital. In our cohort median age was 68 years old, sex ratio was M/F 56%/44%, performance status was lower than 2 in 73.1% of patients, AML subtype was "De novo" in 71.5%, "secondary" in 22.4%, and "therapy-related" in 6.0% of patients. Intensive chemotherapy was used in 53.0% of patients, and non-intensive chemotherapy in 40.6% of patients. Molecular analysis was available in a large majority of patients and the main mutations found were NPM1 (22.7%), DNMT3A (17.4%), TP53 (13.1%), TET2 (12.4%), and FLT3-ITD (12.4%).
resultsIn our findings, the comparison of overall survival between the three prognostic groups in the global cohort was statistically significant in all classifiers: ELN 2017 p < 0.0001, ELN 2022 p < 0.0001, ALFA classifier p < 0.0001, Papaemmanuil classifier p < 0.0001, Lindsley classifier p = 0.001. ELN 2017, ELN 2022, ALFA classifier, Papaemmanuil classifier, and Lindsley classifier were calculated respectively in 99%, 99%, 89%, 90%, and 89% of patients.
conclusionsUsing Akaike's information criteria (AIC) to compare all five classifiers, ELN 2022 is the best classifier into younger and older patients and for prognosis.
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.