ArticleBlood advances2025
Evidence-based risk stratification of myeloid neoplasms harboring TP53 mutations.
Article in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Therapy-related myeloid neoplasms following treatment for high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a case series and retrospective analysis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in Fit patients: 2026 treatment algorithms.Blood cancer journal · 2026Review
- A 2026 update on myelodysplastic neoplasms: current state, challenges and future directions.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Mismatched Unrelated vs Matched Related Donor Transplant With Posttransplant Cyclophosphamide Among Patients With Blood Cancers.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of venetoclax combined with hypomethylating agentsHaematologica · 2026Article
- Review
- Low-VAF TP53-Mutated AML Displays Distinct Biological Features in a Single-Center Cohort.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Shaping the future of multiple myeloma with artificial intelligence and digital twins: from concept to clinic.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Pandora's Box of AML: HowBiomedicines · 2025Review
- Clinical and Biological Insights into Myelodysplastic Neoplasms Associated with Deletions of Chromosome 5q Region.Hematology reports · 2025Review
- Molecular and Clinical Insights intoInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- RBC transfusion dependency refines the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System for myelodysplastic syndrome.Blood advances · 2025Article
- What the VAF? A guide to the interpretation of variant allele fraction, percent mosaicism, and copy number in cancer.Molecular cytogenetics · 2025Review
- Can we harmonize classification of TP53 mutant MDS/AML?Blood advances · 2025Article
- Long-term follow-up and combined Phase 2 results of eprenetapopt and azacitidine in patients withHemaSphere · 2025Article
- Validation of the 5th edition of the World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification guidelines for TP53-mutated myeloid neoplasm in an independent international cohort.Blood cancer journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThis retrospective analysis aimed to provide evidence-based risk stratification of TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasms (MNs). Of 580 MNs harboring TP53mut with variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥2%, 219 (37.8%), 194 (33.4%), 92 (15.9%), and 75 (12.9%) were classified as acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with low blasts (MDS-LB), MDS with excess blasts (MDS-EB)-2, and -EB1 according to the revised fourth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, respectively. Hierarchical analysis identified the following 4 risk groups with distinct survival: (1) MDS-LB, (2) MDS-EB1/EB2/AML VAF <10%, (3) MDS-EB1/EB2 VAF ≥10%, and (4) AML VAF ≥10%. We next evaluated the impact of allelic status, VAF, and complex karyotype (CK). In our cohort, the significance of biallelic status was limited to MDS with <5% blasts and not for blasts 5% to 9%, as proposed by the International Consensus Classification (ICC), or 5% to 19%, as proposed by the fifth edition of the WHO (WHO-5). MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10% had comparable survival (9.6 vs 7.2 months; P = .12), regardless of allelic status. Contrary to the ICC proposal, MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF <10% and CK had poor survival compared with those without CK, comparable to MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% (5.6 vs 26.2 vs 6.3 months; P = .003). Survival of TP53mut AML was poor (median 3.9 months) regardless of allelic/CK status. Thus, using ICC or WHO-5 may underestimate prognosis of MDS with blasts 5% to 19% and 5% to 9%, respectively. Collectively, the hierarchical model acknowledges poor survival of 91.9% TP53mut MDS and AML compared with 36.5% and 80.7% by WHO-5 and ICC, respectively.
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.