ArticleAnnals of hematology2025
Selective efficacy of venetoclax in unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related gene mutations under low-intensity therapy.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Myelodysplasia-Related Gene Mutations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
According to the 2022 International Consensus Classification (ICC) guidelines, nine myelodysplasia-related (MDS-related) gene mutations are classified as adverse-risk markers in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) under intensive therapy (INT). Although venetoclax (VEN) has demonstrated clinical benefit in subsets of AML with MDS-related gene mutations (AML-MR), its efficacy across all nine mutations remains unclear. In this retrospective study involving 453 AML-MR patients, the overall composite complete remission (CRc) rate was 62.6% (275/439). Among fit patients receiving INT, 57.7% (86/149) achieved CRc after a single cycle of induction therapy (IND1), while 62.7% (79/126) of unfit patients receiving low-intensity therapy (LIT) achieved CRc after IND1. VEN significantly improved CRc rates in unfit patients treated with LIT (45.9% vs. 30.0%, P = 0.002), but not in fit patients receiving INT (61.1% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.052). In both groups, CRc after IND1 was strongly associated with improved overall survival (OS). Subgroup analysis showed that hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) significantly prolonged OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients without favorable-risk cytogenetics (P = 0.002 for OS, P < 0.001 for RFS), but conferred no survival benefit in those with favorable-risk cytogenetics (P = 0.119 for OS, P = 0.437 for RFS). These findings support the use of VEN to enhance early remission and survival outcomes in unfit AML-MR patients and suggest that HSCT should be considered primarily in those lacking favorable-risk cytogenetics.
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.