Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39808802›Full record

ReviewBlood2025

How I treat higher-risk MDS.

Alain Mina, Rami Komrokji

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Therapy of high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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.

Alain MinaMyeloid Malignancies Program, Immune Deficiency Cellular Therapy Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Rami KomrokjiDepartment of Malignant Hematology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-1876-5269

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractMyelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are a widely heterogenous group of myeloid malignancies characterized by morphological dysplasia, a defective hematopoiesis, and recurrent genetic abnormalities. The original International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and revised IPSS have been used to risk-stratify patients with MDS to guide treatment strategies. In higher-risk MDS, the therapeutic approach is geared toward delaying leukemic transformation and prolonging survival. For more than a decade, the hypomethylating agents azacitidine and decitabine have been the standard of care and, when feasible, an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation should be considered. However, the IPSS scoring systems solely rely on clinical, morphological, and cytogenetic features and do not account for somatic mutations present in >80% of cases. These genetic abnormalities have been shown to play a crucial role in prognostication, prompting the development of molecular IPSS, and the integration of genomic features into MDS classification systems in recent years. In this review, we delineate our approach to higher-risk MDS in the context of updated classifications and the latest prognostication tools. We use illustrative clinical cases to support our discussion and share insights from recent clinical trials, highlighting lessons learned.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationMyelodysplastic SyndromesAgedAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticAzacitidineCase Reports as TopicDecitabineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticAzacitidineDecitabine

Identifiers

PMID39808802
PMCPMC12782972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.