SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Comparative survival outcomes between therapy-related and de novo acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia (t-ALL) is an aggressive subtype of ALL that arises after cytotoxic therapy. It is associated with adverse cytogenetics and older age, but survival outcomes compared with de novo ALL remain uncertain. We aimed to systematically evaluate survival differences in adults with t-ALL versus d-ALL.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched to Dec 31, 2024. Eligible studies included adults (≥ 18 years) with t-ALL or de novo ALL reporting survival. Pediatric studies, case reports, reviews, and abstracts were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Quality was assessed with the MASTER scale. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival were pooled using Doi’s quality effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025625294).
resultsFrom 3,325 records, 27 retrospective cohort studies (169,237 patients; 1,827 with t-ALL) were included. Nine studies (30,527 patients) were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled HR for mortality in t-ALL versus d-ALL was 1.07 (95% CI 0.94–1.23), showing no significant survival difference. Median survival ranged from 6 to 32 months in t-ALL and 11–50.6 months in d-ALL. Poor-risk cytogenetics were more frequent in t-ALL (43–100% vs. 31–66%), with higher TP53 mutations (38% vs. 10%) and complex karyotypes. Complete remission was lower in t-ALL (60–88.9% vs. 81.5–93%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I²=50.5%) with evidence of small-study effects.
conclusionDespite adverse biology, t-ALL demonstrates survival comparable to d-ALL with modern therapies, particularly allogeneic transplantation.
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.