ArticleStem cell research & therapy2024
Comparison of allo-SCT, auto-SCT and chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with low- or intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe therapeutic status of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) as a post-remission treatment for patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was well-accepted. However, the optimal treatment for patients with low/favorable- or intermediate-risk AML who achieve complete remission has remained controversial. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to discuss this disputed problem.
methodsWe compared the effects of treatment strategies including allo-SCT, autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) and consolidation chemotherapy (CT) for patients with low/favorable- or intermediate-risk AML. The pooled HRs and 95% CIs for overall survival and disease-free survival were estimated with Stata12 and R software. Thirty clinical studies with 6682 patients were included in the meta-analysis.
resultsThe results indicated that the treatment outcome of allo-SCT was the best, followed by auto-SCT, and CT was likely the worst in the total AML patients. In patients with low/favorable-risk AML, the treatment outcome of auto-SCT was likely ranked first, followed by allo-SCT, and CT was the worst. In patients with intermediate-risk AML, the treatment outcome of haploidentical stem cell transplantation (haplo-SCT) was the best, followed by allo-SCT (excluding haplo-SCT), and auto-SCT and CT were the worst. However, the median age of the haplo-SCT group was much younger than that of the control group, which may be one of the reasons for the better prognosis of the haplo-SCT group.
conclusionsPatients with low/favorable- and intermediate-risk (non-high-risk) AML should prioritize allo-SCT if they are eligible for transplantation, and auto-SCT is optional. However, in the subgroup analysis, auto-SCT was the optimal treatment choice for patients with low/favorable-risk AML, and allo-SCT was the priority selection for patients with intermediate-risk AML, especially young patients. These findings could provide references for clinical practice.
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.