ArticleBlood advances2025
A revised prognostic model for patients with acute myeloid leukemia and first relapse.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ANKRD28 interacts with DOCK180 to activate Rac1-STAT3-Myc signaling and sustain stemness of CD34Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2026Article
- Methylome profiling reveals context-dependent chemo-resistance mechanisms and enhances risk stratification in AML.Cancer cell international · 2026Article
- Immune monitoring for relapse of acute myeloid leukemia after allogeneic stem cell transplantation in clinical laboratories.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Multi-omics integration of molecular genetics, cytogenetics and immunophenotyping: a novel prognostic model for immune landscape characterization and outcome prediction in Chinese patients with acute myeloid leukemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractMost patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may obtain remission upon induction chemotherapy, but relapse is frequent and associated with poor survival. Previous prognostic models for outcomes after relapse lacked analysis of comprehensive molecular data. A validated prognostic model integrating clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular variables may support treatment decisions. We studied 943 patients with AML who relapsed after intensive induction treatment in a development cohort (HOVON-SAKK). A random survival forest algorithm was used to evaluate the association of clinical parameters, cytogenetic abnormalities, and molecular variables at diagnosis with overall survival (OS). Relapsing patients (n = 377) who were enrolled in the NCRI-AML18 trial were used for validation. In the development cohort, the median age at relapse was 58 years, and patients were classified as 2022 European LeukemiaNet favorable (22%), intermediate (31%), and adverse risk (48%). One-third underwent allogeneic transplantation in the first complete remission. Variable selection yielded 9 variables associated with 1-year OS, including relapse-free interval, age, white blood cell count, mutated TP53, FLT3 internal tandem duplication, core-binding factor abnormalities, t(v;11q23)/KMT2A rearrangement, and complex/monosomal karyotype, which were assigned points according to their estimated hazard ratios. Three prognostic groups were defined with distinct 1-year OS in both development (favorable, 51% ± 3%; intermediate, 29% ± 3%; and poor, 14% ± 2%, respectively) and validation cohorts (51% ± 4%, 26% ± 5%, and 14% ± 3%, respectively). Validation confirmed the improved accuracy in predicting outcomes for patients with AML in first relapse. The revised AML relapse model improved on previous prognostic models for outcomes after first relapse. It provides stratification that might support tailoring second line treatment.
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.