ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
No evidence of leukaemia (NEL) as a response criteria in paediatric AML: a multicentre analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In AML, the assessment of response is one of the most important prognostic markers and is crucial for assessing clinical trials. Remission criteria for AML defined by Cheson et al. has remained virtually unchanged over the last two decades. Here we revised response criteria and provide a more precise standard for evaluating treatment outcomes in paediatric AML. Methods: A multicentre analysis of real-time data of 1094 paediatric patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2021 within the AML-BFM study group was conducted, categorising them into two alternative response groups "evidence of leukaemia" (EL, ≥5% blasts) and "no evidence of leukaemia" (NEL, <5% blasts) and comparing those with the previous CR versus no-CR classification across three different treatment timepoints. Findings: The survival of patients newly classified as NEL was comparable to that of patients with CR. The revised NEL/EL comparison showed better predictive power in terms of survival than the former CR/no-CR classification. The poorest outcome at the end of induction (EOI) was noticed in patients with EL, which could be improved by HSCT. Stratification by NEL/EL revealed the highest independent predictive effect on overall and event-free survival. The integration of measurable residual disease monitoring using reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) further improved the predictive power of the revised definition. Interpretation: By simplifying the response criteria for morphological assessment of blast persistence (NEL/EL), we provide an improved and more precise definition of response for paediatric AML, which presents a new milestone with a high prognostic impact in daily clinical practice and in interpreting clinical trials. Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V., University of Duisburg-Essen.
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.