ReviewCancers2025
Advances and Challenges in the Management of Myelodysplastic Syndromes.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ELN vs. IPSS-M in MDS/AML: Which Prognostic System Should Guide Clinical Decision-Making?Cancers · 2026Review
- Mapping the research landscape of myelodysplastic syndromes: a scientometric analysis (2014-2025).Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Metabolomic Investigation of Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Multiple Myeloma, and Homozygous β-Thalassemia.Cells · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) represent a biologically and clinically diverse group of myeloid malignancies marked by cytopenias, morphological dysplasia, and an inherent risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Over the past two decades, the field has made significant advances in characterizing the molecular landscape of MDS, leading to refined classification systems to reflect the underlying genetic and biological diversity. In 2025, the treatment of MDS is increasingly individualized, guided by integrated clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular risk stratification tools. For lower-risk MDS, the treatment paradigm has evolved beyond erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) with the introduction of novel effective agents such as luspatercept and imetelstat, as well as shortened schedules of hypomethylating agents (HMAs). For higher-risk disease, monotherapy with HMAs continue to be the standard of care as combination therapies of HMAs with novel agents have, to date, failed to redefine treatment paradigms. The recognition of precursor states like clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and the increasing use of molecular monitoring will hopefully enable earlier intervention/prevention strategies. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current treatment approach for MDS, highlighting new classifications, prognostic tools, evolving therapeutic options, and ongoing challenges. We discuss evidence-based recommendations, treatment sequencing, and emerging clinical trials, with a focus on translating biological insights into improved outcomes for patients with MDS.
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.