ArticleOncology letters2025
Azacitidine plus venetoclax for maintenance treatment in intermediate‑to‑low‑risk acute myeloid leukemia: A comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in an observational cohort.
Article in Oncology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of azacitidine (AZA) and venetoclax (VEN) for maintenance treatment in patients with intermediate-to-low-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a contentious issue. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the use of VEN plus AZA (VEN-AZA) and the relapse rate of intermediate-to-low-risk AML among adult Chinese participants. The primary endpoint was AML relapse, analyzed using time-to-event methods. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare outcomes between patients who continued VEN-AZA for maintenance treatment and those who discontinued such therapy. Among the 43 patients, 22 (51.1%) received VEN-AZA with treatment cycles every 2-3 months, while the remaining 21 patients discontinued maintenance therapy. The median ages for the two groups were 59 and 49 years, respectively, with an age range of 21-81 years. With a median follow-up of 29.6 months (range 7-74), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the maintenance therapy group and was 47.3 months in the group that discontinued treatment. The number of grade 3-4 adverse events was low in the maintenance group, with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia as the primary hematological adverse events, and respiratory infection as the main non-hematological adverse event. Univariate analysis indicated that age, white blood cell count and maintenance therapy were associated with AML relapse. After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that maintenance treatment was associated with a reduced risk of relapse and a longer PFS time, compared with discontinued treatment (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.77). Therefore, patients treated with VEN-AZA exhibited a longer PFS time, suggesting that further clinical trials are warranted.
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.