ArticleBlood advances2026
Validation of ICC hierarchical classification in secondary AML.
Article in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ELN vs. IPSS-M in MDS/AML: Which Prognostic System Should Guide Clinical Decision-Making?Cancers · 2026Review
- Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Myelodysplasia-Related Gene Mutations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Severe Folate Deficiency Mimicking Myelodysplastic Syndrome/Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Case Report.Case reports in hematology · 2026Article
- AML, Myelodysplasia-Related: Beyond Classification-Toward Precision Decision-Making.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractSecondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) comprises heterogeneous entities, unified by poor prognosis. We evaluated the associations of genetic profiles with blast counts and patients' history in a cohort of 924 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/AML or AML, classified according to the International Consensus Classification (ICC). The cohort included 109 patients with "mutated TP53," 497 with "myelodysplasia-related (MDR) gene mutation," 93 with "MDR-cytogenetic abnormality," 77 were therapy-related, and 136 controls, categorized as "not otherwise specified" (NOS) AML. Exploring the ICC hierarchy, AML and MDS/AML categories with "mutated TP53" and "MDR-cytogenetic abnormality" presented similar biology and prognosis, irrespective of blast counts. Conversely, in MDS/AML with "MDR gene mutation" and NOS, profiles significantly differed from AML and were characterized by a higher number of mutations in STAG2, SRSF2, ASXL1 and TET2. This corresponded to improved survival in MDS/AML vs AML (MDR-gene mutation: median overall survival 24.8 vs 13.6 months, P< .0001; and NOS: 49.9 vs 19.2 months, P = .028). Within each ICC-defined AML category, a prior MDS history vs de novo onset did not impact on patients' prognosis. We then analyzed secondary AML, defined by "prior MDS or MDS/MPN" or "therapy-related" (t-AML), as diagnostic qualifiers. According to European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022, AML progressing from MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) (AML post-MDS) mostly clustered in the adverse-risk group (84.1%), whereas t-AML showed more heterogeneous ELN profiles (12.9% favorable, 33.8% intermediate, and 53.3% adverse risk) reflecting diverse overall survival. Our findings underscore that genetic features and the ICC classification reliably capture disease biology, refine risk stratification, and ultimately guide treatment decisions in most secondary AML and MDS/AML.
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.