ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparison of maintenance with decitabine or chemotherapy in a real-world cohort of patients with acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this real-world cohort study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of decitabine versus conventional chemotherapy in the maintenance therapy (MT) of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Methods: Data were collected from 156 consecutive patients diagnosed with AML at our center. All patients achieved complete remission (CR) after 1-2 courses of induction therapy, followed by consolidation with high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC). MT was administered using either decitabine or conventional chemotherapy, while patients who did not receive maintenance served as controls. Results: MT significantly improved both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in AML patients. However, no significant difference was observed between decitabine and conventional chemotherapy. MT notably prolonged both RFS and OS in the cytogenetic intermediate-risk group, patients without Conclusion: MT with either decitabine or chemotherapy can improve outcomes of AML patients in this real-world cohort. Decitabine maintenance exhibits better tolerability compared with chemotherapy and enhances survival in specific patient subgroups.
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.