Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39199685›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Comparative Analysis of AML Classification Systems: Evaluating the WHO, ICC, and ELN Frameworks and Their Distinctions.

Huda Salman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Huda SalmanBrown Center for Immunotherapy, Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5305-3198

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive analyses of the molecular heterogeneity of acute myelogenous leukemia, AML, particularly when malignant cells retain normal karyotype, has significantly evolved. In 2022, significant revisions were introduced in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 guidelines of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). These revisions coincided with the inception of the first version of the International Consensus Classification (ICC) for AML. These modifications aim to improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes via a comprehensive incorporation of sophisticated genetic and clinical parameters as well as facilitate accruals to innovative clinical trials. Key updates include modifications to the blast count criteria for AML diagnosis, with WHO 2022 eliminating the ≥20% blast requirement in the presence of AML-defining abnormalities and ICC 2022 setting a 10% cutoff for recurrent genetic abnormalities. Additionally, new categories, such as AML with mutated TP53 and MDS/AML, were introduced. ELN 2022 guidelines retained risk stratification approach and emphasized the critical role of measurable residual disease (MRD) that increased the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and flow cytometry testing. These revisions underscore the importance of precise classification for targeted treatment strategies and improved patient outcomes. How much difference versus concordance these classifications present and the impact of those on clinical practice is a continuing discussion.

Indexed as

acute myeloid leukemiaAMLclassificationELNICCWHO

Identifiers

PMID39199685
PMCPMC11352995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.