ArticleBlood neoplasia2026
Impact of European LeukemiaNet-guided postremission therapy on outcomes of patients with AML from 2010 to 2022.
Article in Blood neoplasia, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) classification for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) incorporates cytogenetic and mutational risk profiles of AML to define separate risk groups that correlate with survival outcomes. Recommendations for postremission treatment (PRT) intensity, mainly allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, are based on these risk groups. In-depth genetically defined cohorts of registries or clinical trials, often reported as retrospective real-world validation cohorts, contain an inherent bias as patients were not treated according to recommendations matching time intervals of the respective ELN classification. We analyzed 662 patients with AML who received intensive induction therapy at our center between 2010 and 2022. Patients were classified according to ELN 2010 if treated between 2010 and 2016, and ELN 2017 if treated between 2017 and 2022. Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) significantly improved for patients treated between 2017 and 2022 compared with those treated between 2010 and 2016 (4-year OS, 60% vs 40%; 4-year RFS, 54% vs 35%). To eliminate treatment bias, patients treated between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively reclassified for genetic risk according to ELN 2010 and compared with regularly classified patients treated between 2010 and 2016. The improved outcome was particularly evident for intermediate-risk (IR) patients, whereas favorable and adverse subgroups showed no significant difference. This is, to our knowledge, the first analysis examining the impact of ELN-guided PRT in the context of treatment algorithms applied in the respective ELN time period. We conclude that the shift of risk groups between ELN 2010 and 2017, along with the resulting intensified PRT, contributed to significantly improved survival of patients with AML, particularly those with IR.
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.