ReviewBlood2025
How I treat higher-risk MDS.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Real-World Management of HMA-Related Myelosuppression During MDS Treatment in the Canadian Landscape.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Therapy of high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Review
- [Impact of conditioning intensity on transplant outcomes following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms: a multicenter retrospective cohort study].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Azacitidine Plus Venetoclax in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Transformed from Myelodysplastic Syndrome after Failure of Azacitidine Monotherapy.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Article
- Hotspot gene mutations and treatment response in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS): predictive biomarkers and targeted strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Criteria for referring pediatric and adult patients with hematological diseases to palliative care: Consensus of the Brazilian Association of Hematology, hemotherapy and cell therapy (2025).Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.