ArticleInternational journal of hematology2026
Azacitidine monotherapy versus combination regimens as post-HSCT maintenance therapy in high-risk myeloid malignancies: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2026. 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.
- Evolving Management Approaches Toward Personalized Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy demonstrates efficacy for post-transplant maintenance in patients with high-risk myeloid malignancies. However, no study has directly compared combination regimens. In this retrospective cohort study, 59 patients (AML = 56, MDS = 3) received AZA-based maintenance post-allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), as monotherapy (n = 33), AZA plus interferon-α (IFN-α) (n = 15), or AZA plus targeted agents (n = 11). At the median 31-month follow-up, the overall relapse rate was 10.2% (6/59), with comparable rates across groups (AZA: 9.1%, AZA + IFN-α: 13.3%, AZA + targeted: 9.1%) (P = 0.850). Three 3-year relapse-free survival (89.4%; 95%CI 84.7-94.1%) and overall survival (84.4%; 95%CI 78.9-89.9%) rates did not differ significantly between monotherapy and combination regimens (RFS P = 0.975; OS P = 0.770). Overall adverse event rates showed no statistical difference (P > 0.05), although febrile reactions were more common with IFN-α combination regimens (P < 0.001). These findings demonstrate that AZA monotherapy has non-inferior efficacy compared with combination regimens and has a favorable toxicity profile, establishing it as a viable backbone for maintenance therapy in MRD-negative patients. Biomarker-driven combinations warrant prospective validation.
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.