ArticleCancer medicine2025
Chidamide in Combination With DCAG With or Without Venetoclax for Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. 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.
- Epigenetic Targeting in Myeloid Malignancies.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Chidamide combined with decitabine, venetoclax, and low-dose cytarabine for relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center case series.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Smart Thrombosis Care: The Rise of Closed-Loop Diagnosis-to-Treatment Nano Systems.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCurrently, there are only a few avaailable treatment options for patients with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML).
methodsWe conducted a single-center, phase 1 prospective study (ChiCTR2200065634) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of chidamide, demethylating drugs (azacitidine), cytarabine, aclacinomycin, and G-CSF plus venetoclax (CDCAG-VEN) in patients with R/R AML. The previous CDCAG regimen was used as a historical control to compare its efficacy and safety. Thirty and 22 patients received one course of CDCAG with or without a 14-day course of venetoclax, respectively.
resultsThe overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in the CDCAG-VEN group than in the CDCAG-treated group (78.6% vs. 45.5%; p = 0.015), and the CDCAG-VEN group achieved a better trend of measurable residual disease-negative response (61.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.134). Compared with the CDCAG group, the CDCAG-VEN group exhibited significantly better 1-year overall survival (63.3% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.005) and progression-free survival (76.7% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.022). The duration of response was notably better in the CDCAG-VEN group than in the CDCAG group (71.2% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.021) and had a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (22.2% vs. 48.9%, p = 0.095). The neutrophil and platelet recovery times were similar between the CDCAG-VEN and CDCAG groups (neutrophil: 18 days vs. 19 days, p = 0.293; platelet: 18 days vs. 19 days, p = 0.311). The frequencies of adverse events were comparable between both groups, except for a lower incidence of thrombosis in the CDCAG-VEN group (0% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: In conclusion, venetoclax in combination with CDCAG is an effective and safe treatment regimen for R/R AML, thereby rapidly identifying chemosensitive patients and inducing measurable residual disease-negative remission in a high proportion of patients with R/R AML.
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.