ArticleInternational journal of hematology2024
Comparison of disease and risk classifications of AML before and after incorporation of NGS analysis of bone marrow samples.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mutation profiling by next-generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and has been incorporated into the new disease classification (International Consensus Classification; ICC) and risk classification (European LeukemiaNet [ELN] 2022; ELN2022). We compared disease subtypes between the previous disease classification (4th edition of the WHO classification; WHO-4) and the ICC in 91 patients with AML diagnosed at our institution. We also compared disease risk classifications using the previous risk classification (ELN2017) and the ELN2022. Targeted sequencing of bone marrow samples was conducted at Kyoto University. We found that entities under AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities were well-established, with almost no change from the WHO-4 to the ICC. In contrast, 16.7% of cases of AML, not otherwise specified in the WHO-4 were reclassified into AML with mutated TP53, and 36.7% were reclassified into AML with myelodysplasia-related gene mutations or cytogenetic abnormalities per the ICC. Meanwhile, the ELN2017 and ELN2022 showed no difference in concordance indexes in multivariate Cox regression analysis for progression-free and overall survival. The superiority of the ELN2022 over the ELN2017 could not be confirmed in our single-center retrospective study, and further investigation including multicenter prospective studies is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39222234What 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.