ArticleBiochemical genetics2026
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients with High-Risk Karyotypes Benefit from Decitabine in Combination with Modified CAG.
Article in Biochemical genetics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the genetic characteristics of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients and identify which patients derive the greatest benefit from a low-intensity regimen of decitabine combined with modified Cytarabine + Aclarubicin + Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (D-CAG) or intensive chemotherapy (IA regimen). We retrospectively analyzed cytogenetic and molecular data of 331 newly diagnosed AML patients and examined the associations between genetic characteristics, risk status, treatment approaches, and clinical outcomes. The median follow-up duration was 45 months (range: 2-120 months). Patients receiving IA therapy achieved higher complete remission (CR) rates (79.3% vs. 66.4%, P < 0.05), while objective response rates (ORR) remained comparable between the two treatment arms. Both in the total cohort and among favorable-risk patients, the median overall survival (OS) was significantly reduced in the D-CAG group compared to the IA group (P < 0.05). For intermediate- and high-risk patients who had not undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), median OS outcomes were comparable between the two treatment regimens. Patients harboring TET2 (Tet methylcytosine dioxygenase 2), NRAS (Neuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homolog), or biallelic CEBPA mutations demonstrated superior OS in the IA group compared to the D-CAG group (P < 0.05). Notably, older patients with complex or monosomal karyotypes exhibited longer median OS than their younger counterparts (P < 0.05). In conclusion, D-CAG may represent a more suitable therapeutic option for AML patients with high-risk karyotypic profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41236689What 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.