ArticleHaematologica2024
Decision analysis for transplant candidates with primary myelofibrosis in the ruxolitinib era.
Article in Haematologica, 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.
- Targeting mitochondrial dysfunction in myeloproliferative neoplasms: current strategies and future directions - a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- The Gordian knot: ruxolitinib or transplants for high-risk myelofibrosis.Haematologica · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent progress with ruxolitinib treatment might improve quality of life as well as overall survival in patients with primary myelofibrosis. Therefore, the optimal timing of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in the ruxolitinib era remains to be elucidated. We constructed a Markov model to simulate the 5-year clinical course of transplant candidates with primary myelofibrosis and compared outcomes between those who underwent immediate HCT and those whose HCT was delayed until after ruxolitinib failure. Since older age was associated with an increased risk of mortality, we analyzed patients aged <60 and ≥60 years separately in subgroup analyses. Life expectancy was consistently longer in the groups undergoing delayed HCT after ruxolitinib failure regardless of the patients' age. Regarding quality-adjusted life years, a baseline analysis showed that immediate HCT was inferior to delayed HCT after ruxolitinib failure (2.19 vs. 2.26). In patients aged <60 years, immediate HCT was equivalent to delayed HCT after ruxolitinib failure (2.31 vs. 2.31). On the other hand, in patients aged ≥60 years, immediate HCT was inferior to delayed HCT after ruxolitinib failure (1.98 vs. 2.21). A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of being alive without chronic graft-versus-host disease after immediate HCT was the most influential parameter for quality-adjusted life years, and that a value higher than 0.836 could reverse the superiority of delayed HCT after ruxolitinib failure. As a result, delayed HCT after ruxolitinib failure is expected to be superior to immediate HCT, especially in patients aged ≥60 years, and is also a promising strategy even in those aged <60 years.
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.