ArticleCancer medicine2024
Flow cytometric minimal residual disease measurement accounting for cytogenetics in children with non-high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated according to the ALL-MB 2008 protocol.
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 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.
- Pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia relapse and prognosis: key predictors and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Flow cytometric minimal residual disease measurement accounting for cytogenetics in children with non-high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated according to the ALL-MB 2008 protocol.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
23 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative measurement of minimal residual disease (MRD) is the "gold standard" for estimating the response to therapy in childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL). Nevertheless, the speed of the MRD response differs for different cytogenetic subgroups. Here we present results of MRD measurement in children with BCP-ALL, in terms of genetic subgroups with relation to clinically defined risk groups.
methodsA total of 485 children with non-high-risk BCP-ALL with available cytogenetic data and MRD studied at the end-of-induction (EOI) by multicolor flow cytometry (MFC) were included. All patients were treated with standard-risk (SR) of intermediate-risk (ImR) regimens of "ALL-MB 2008" reduced-intensity protocol. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Among all study group patients, 203 were found to have low-risk cytogenetics (ETV6::RUNX1 or high hyperdiploidy), while remaining 282 children were classified in intermediate cytogenetic risk group. For the patients with favorable and intermediate risk cytogenetics, the most significant thresholds for MFC-MRD values were different: 0.03% and 0.04% respectively. Nevertheless, the most meaningful thresholds were different for clinically defined SR and ImR groups. For the SR group, irrespective to presence/absence of favorable genetic lesions, MFC-MRD threshold of 0.1% was the most clinically valuable, although for ImR group the most informative thresholds were different in patients from low-(0.03%) and intermediate (0.01%) cytogenetic risk groups.
conclusionOur data show that combining clinical risk factors with MFC-MRD measurement is the most useful tool for risk group stratification of children with BCP-ALL in the reduced-intensity protocols. However, this algorithm can be supplemented with cytogenetic data for part of the ImR group.
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.