ArticleAnnals of hematology2025
Efficacy and safety analysis of different treatment regimens in newly diagnosed acute promyelocytic leukemia.
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.
- Dynamic white blood cell kinetics enable early risk stratification of differentiation syndrome in low- and intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Advancing our understanding of the influence of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in chronic myeloid leukemia.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 151 newly diagnosed adult acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) patients during induction therapy at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University to compare the efficacy and complications of different treatment regimens in low-to-intermediate-risk (WBC < 10 × 10⁹/L) and high-risk (WBC ≥ 10 × 10⁹/L) patients. Low-to-intermediate-risk patients were divided into three groups: ATRA + ATO dual induction (n = 18), ATRA + ATO + single-agent chemotherapy (n = 63), and ATRA + ATO + dual-agent chemotherapy (n = 18). High-risk patients were divided into two groups: ATRA + chemotherapy (n = 11) and ATRA + ATO + chemotherapy (n = 41). Results showed no significant differences in early mortality (0% vs. 3.17% vs. 5.56%), complete remission rates (94.44% vs. 96.83%), or molecular remission rates (94.44% vs. 100%) among low-to-intermediate-risk groups (P > 0.05). However, the dual induction group demonstrated superior relapse-free survival (100% vs. 93.65% vs. 88.89%) and lower rates of infection (66.67%) and hepatic dysfunction (22.22%), whereas the dual-agent chemotherapy group exhibited the highest infection (100%) and liver injury rates (61.11%) (P < 0.05). In high-risk patients, the ATRA + ATO + chemotherapy group showed significantly lower relapse rates (4.88% vs. 27.27%, P = 0.025) and higher overall survival (87.80% vs. 81.81%) compared to the ATRA + chemotherapy group. Complications analysis revealed myelosuppression (78.81%) and infections (83.44%) as the most common adverse events in low-to-intermediate-risk patients, with infections reaching 95.12% in high-risk patients. The dual induction group had a higher incidence of differentiation syndrome (5.56%) but lower risks of severe bleeding and DIC. For low-to-intermediate-risk APL patients during induction therapy, ATRA + ATO dual induction reduces relapse and hepatic toxicity but requires vigilance for differentiation syndrome. High-risk patients benefit from ATRA + ATO combined with chemotherapy to improve survival. Treatment should be individualized to balance efficacy and complications, with supportive care critical for mitigating infections and bleeding. This study provides clinical evidence for optimizing APL regimens in the chemotherapy-free era.
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.