ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
Comparative and integrated application of flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing for minimal residual disease monitoring in acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Annals of hematology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimal residual disease (MRD) detection has emerged as a important prognostic biomarker in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), While both flow cytometry (FCM) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) are established MRD detection methods, their comparative performance, concordance, and optimal integration strategy remain incompletely defined in real-world clinical practice. To evaluate the concordance, diagnostic performance, and prognostic value of FCM versus NGS for MRD monitoring in AML patients achieving morphological complete remission. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 210 AML patients treated between January 2014 and December 2023 who underwent simultaneous FCM and NGS MRD assessment during remission. MRD positivity was defined as ≥ 0.1% leukemia-associated immunophenotype cells by FCM or ≥ 0.01% variant allele frequency by NGS. Primary outcomes included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included concordance analysis and subgroup-specific performance. Among 210 patients (median age 54 years, 56.2% female), FCM detected MRD in 119 patients (56.7%) while NGS identified MRD in 128 (61.0%), with an overall concordance of 93.81% (197/210; κ = 0.872, 95% CI: 0.812-0.932). Using NGS as reference standard, FCM demonstrated sensitivity of 91.41% (117/128), specificity of 97.56% (80/82), positive predictive value of 98.32% (117/119), and negative predictive value of 87.91% (80/91). Among 13 discordant cases (6.2%), 11 were FCM-negative/NGS-positive, predominantly harboring NPM1 mutations (8/11, 72.7%), with median VAF of 0.35% (range 0.12%-0.98%). During median follow-up of 18 months, 54.5% (6/11) of FCM-negative/NGS-positive patients relapsed versus 50% (1/2) of FCM-positive/NGS-negative patients. Integrated assessment stratified patients into three distinct risk groups: dual-negative (n = 80, 2.5% relapse rate, 11.2% mortality), single-positive (n = 13, 53.8% relapse rate, 23.1% mortality), and dual-positive (n = 117, 95.7% relapse rate, 57.3% mortality) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). For relapse prediction, the combined approach achieved an area under the curve of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.935-0.989) with 98.4% sensitivity and 97.5% negative predictive value, superior to either method alone. FCM and NGS demonstrate high concordance for AML MRD detection while providing complementary information that enhances risk stratification. The integrated application of both methods improves prognostic assessment, with dual-negative status identifying patients suitable for treatment de-escalation and any MRD positivity warranting intensified monitoring. These findings support a personalized MRD monitoring strategy incorporating both technologies at critical therapeutic decision points.
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.