Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289867›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of haematology2026

A critical review of management of allogeneic transplant-eligible adults with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

Naranie Shanmuganathan, Andrew Grigg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of haematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Naranie ShanmuganathanDepartment of Haematology, Royal Adelaide Hospital and SA Pathology, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5895-8797
Andrew GriggDepartment of Clinical Haematology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in 20%-30% of adult patients contains the Philadelphia (Ph+) chromosome. Historically, Ph+ ALL denoted a markedly inferior outcome and long-term survival in the absence of an allograft was uncommon. However, the advent of targeted therapy directed against the BCR::ABL1 fusion protein with various tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has markedly improved the prognosis, resulting in a number of treatment controversies in allograft-eligible patients. Which is the best TKI to use in induction? What is the clinical relevance of the subdivision of Ph+ ALL into multilineage vs lymphoid types? Do all patients in first morphological complete remission (CR1) after induction and consolidation with chemotherapy/TKI require an allograft? If not, what risk factors predict a poor outcome without an allograft? Can chemotherapy-free approaches, such as blinatumomab in conjunction with more potent TKIs, obviate the need for an allograft in high-risk patients? What is the best strategy to deal with persistent or emerging minimal residual disease both pre- and post-transplant? Is maintenance TKI indicated in all patients post allograft? Can salvage therapy and a subsequent allograft cure patients who relapse after not being transplanted in CR1? This manuscript reviews the latest data influencing contemporary management and discusses these controversies.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationPhiladelphia ChromosomePrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-LymphomaAdultAllograftsFusion Proteins, bcr-ablHumansNeoplasm, ResidualProtein Kinase InhibitorsTransplantation, HomologousFusion Proteins, bcr-ablProtein Kinase Inhibitorsacute leukaemiaBCR::ABL1MRDstem cell transplantation

Identifiers

PMID39289867
PMCPMC12819108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.