ArticleInternational journal of hematology2026
Efficacy and safety of venetoclax-based regimens versus intensive chemotherapy in older adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center retrospective 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 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.
- Venetoclax for elderly patients with acute myeloid leukaemia unfit for intensive chemotherapy: Prospects, resistance mechanisms and management strategies.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venetoclax (VEN) has emerged as a frontline therapy for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), yet its advantages over intensive chemotherapy (IC) remain uncertain. This single-center retrospective study compared the efficacy and safety of VEN-based regimens (n = 35) with IC (n = 54) in newly diagnosed patients with AML aged ≥ 65 years. No significant differences were found in the primary endpoints of median event-free survival (190.0 vs. 84.5 days, p = 0.20) or median overall survival (324 vs. 273 days, p = 0.30). However, the VEN group demonstrated a significantly higher overall response rate (71% vs. 48%, p = 0.03) and a more favorable safety profile. Notably, 30-day mortality was 0% in the VEN group compared to 16.7% in the IC group. Rates of Grade ≥ 3 cytopenias and febrile neutropenia were also significantly lower in the VEN group. These findings suggest that VEN-based regimens offer comparable survival with improved response rates and reduced early mortality, supporting their use as an effective and safer alternative to IC even for some IC-eligible older adults with AML, though these conclusions are drawn from a single-center, retrospective study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41247640What 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.