ArticleBlood advances2026
Adding induction intrathecal cytarabine in newly diagnosed CNS2 B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia does not improve outcomes.
Article in Blood advances, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractPatients with central nervous system (CNS) disease at diagnosis on Children's Oncology Group (COG) B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) trials AALL0331 and AALL0232 had inferior outcomes, largely secondary to CNS relapse. In response, for patients with newly diagnosed B-ALL enrolled on COG studies AALL0932 and AALL1131, therapy was adjusted to incorporate additional intrathecal cytarabine during induction for patients with low-level CNS involvement (CNS2). We evaluated the impact of this intervention.Event-free survival, overall survival, and cumulative incidence of relapse were compared among patients with CNS2 B-ALL before vs after amendment, stratified by receipt of a 3-drug (standard-risk) or 4-drug (high-risk) induction. Multivariable models were constructed to adjust for demographic and disease variables. When stratified by trial, preamendment and postamendment patients with CNS2 status did not differ significantly by demographic or disease factors. Additional intrathecal cytarabine doses during induction did not improve outcomes for patients with B-ALL. Multivariate analyses adjusting for disease prognosticators, race/ethnicity, and leukemia cytogenetics did not identify any subpopulation that significantly benefited from additional intrathecal cytarabine. Additional intrathecal cytarabine during induction for patients with CNS2 B-ALL did not improve outcomes or mitigate the adverse prognostic impact of CNS2 status in B-ALL. Future COG B-ALL studies will not include additional intrathecal cytarabine in induction for patients with CNS2 disease. Alternative treatment strategies are needed for patients with CNS2 disease.
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.