ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2025
Comparison of HiDAC Versus FLAG-IDA in the Treatment of Relapsed Acute Myeloid Leukemia and High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRelapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS) are associated with a poor prognosis. It is unknown which re-induction therapy provides the highest chance of durable remission. Commonly used therapies are high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) and triple therapy consisting of fludarabine, cytarabine, and idarubicin combined with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (FLAG-IDA).
methodsTwo patient cohorts with relapsed AML or HR-MDS treated with HiDAC or FLAG-IDA between October 2015 and December 2021 in two academic hospitals in the Netherlands were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsPatients were treated with either HiDAC (n=22) or FLAG-IDA (n=25). Rates of CR (71% vs. 74%, P=0.85), 1-year OS (47% vs. 51%, P=0.99) and EFS (38% vs. 35%, P=0.71) were comparable between HiDAC and FLAG-IDA. Durations of neutropenia (median 24 days (IQR 20-26) vs. 30 days (IQR 22-39), P=0.014) and thrombocytopenia (22 days (IQR 17-26) vs. 36 days (IQR 26-53)) were significantly shorter in the HiDAC group than in the FLAG-IDA group.
conclusionWhile remission rates and survival outcomes were similar, FLAG-IDA was associated with longer periods of myelosuppression and transfusion dependency compared to HiDAC in these two cohorts. HiDAC can be considered as a salvage chemotherapyfor relapsed AML/HR-MDS based on our study.
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.