ArticleLeukemia2024
Are measurable residual disease results after consolidation therapy useful in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia?
Article in Leukemia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term blinatumomab for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia pediatric patients results in measurable residual disease clearance.Annals of hematology · 2026Trial
- Improved survival in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia through therapy intensification based on minimal residual disease and protocol-driven early response risk classification.Blood research · 2025Article
- Stem cell transplantation indications for patients with acute leukemia determined by measurable residual disease: what we know and what we do not know.Blood science (Baltimore, Md.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurable residual disease (MRD) is regularly tested at later timepoints after the end of first consolidation (EOC) in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The question remains whether this is useful for detecting (molecular) relapse. We investigated the clinical relevance of MRD after EOC in intermediate risk patients treated on DCOG-ALL-10 (n = 271) and DCOG-ALL-9 (n = 122), with MRD <0.05% at EOC. EOC MRD-negative patients (n = 178) had excellent outcomes, irrespective of MRD results at later timepoints; 6-year cumulative incidence of relapse (6-y CIR) of 7.4% (95% CI, 3.9%-12.3%) for those with MRD negativity at all later timepoints compared to 3.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-16.8%) for those with one or more later timepoints being positive (p = 0.51). Patients with positive EOC MRD (n = 91) of whom the subsequent timepoints were MRD negative (n = 43), had comparable good outcomes, 6-y CIR of 7.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-17.2%). In contrast, patients being MRD positive at EOC and MRD positive at one or more subsequent timepoints (n = 48) had a higher risk of relapse, 6-y CIR 29.4% (95% CI, 17.2%-42.8%), p < 0.001. These findings were confirmed in the validation cohort of ALL-9 as well as using the updated EuroMRD guidelines. In EOC MRD-negative patients, subsequent MRD measurements can be abandoned. For EOC MRD-positive patients the subsequent MRD measurement might be informative for further risk stratification.
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.