ArticleEJHaem2025
Standardization of Measurable Residual Disease in Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Flow Cytometry: A Multicenter Study.
Article in EJHaem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Measurable residual disease (MRD) is a strong predictor of the risk of relapse of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Therefore, for use in clinical decision-making, methods for MRD assessment must achieve adequate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. Multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) is the most widely used method for assessing AML-MRD, but its sensitivity varies considerably due to the differing approaches used across centers, in addition to the different experiences of flow cytometrists, especially during clonal evolution. This study aimed to standardize AML-MRD by MFC in a multicenter project involving 16 Brazilian laboratories. Methods: In the first phase, specialists were trained in pre-analytical standard operating procedures (SOPs) and analysis strategies of pre-validated 8- and 10-color protocols, followed by a data-only, that is, a Dry Phase of flow cytometry standard (FCS) file exchange by the coordinating laboratory in a comparability assessment. In the second or Wet Phase, laboratories prepared and analyzed their samples, and the FCS files were submitted for central analysis. Results: The agreement of MRD results was 81% and 80% between laboratories and central analysts in the Dry and Wet Phases, respectively. However, non-suitable application of pre-analytical SOPs hampered MRD interpretation for 30% of the laboratories in the Wet Phase. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that standardized flow cytometry protocols are reproducible as long as rigorous SOPs are implemented. The project's results underscore that continuous education and external quality control are essential to build expertise and ensure reliable AML-MRD results in clinical practice.
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.