ArticleInternational journal of hematology2025
Comparison of clinical outcomes between preemptive and maintenance therapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in International journal of hematology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of preemptive and maintenance therapies as post-transplant therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients with AML who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation and received post-transplant therapy were eligible. Preemptive therapy was initiated if elevated Wilms' tumor-1 mRNA was detected in the peripheral blood. Twenty-nine patients received either preemptive (n = 12) or maintenance therapy (n = 17). The median age was 56 years (range, 18-70). The median time from transplantation to intervention was 77 days (range, 43-203) for maintenance and 346 days (range, 104-1027) for preemptive therapy. Maintenance therapy consisted of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy in six patients, venetoclax (VEN) + AZA in five, and VEN + cytarabine (AraC) in six. Preemptive therapy consisted of AZA monotherapy in two patients, VEN + AZA in nine, and VEN + AraC in one. One-year overall survival from intervention was 92% for maintenance and 73% for preemptive therapy (P = 0.28), and 1-year event-free survival was 83% and 66%, respectively (P = 0.29). No serious adverse events or treatment-related mortality were observed in either group. Both therapies were safe and effective in preventing disease relapse. A prospective study comparing these two groups is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40410562What 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.