ArticleBlood cancer journal2026
Outcomes of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms treated with hypomethylating agents + venetoclax-an analysis from the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) VALIDATE database.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
59 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monotherapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) remains the standard of care for patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic neoplasms (HR-MDS). Recently, the randomized phase III VERONA study evaluating azacitidine plus venetoclax (VEN) versus azacitidine plus placebo in newly diagnosed HR-MDS showed no difference in overall survival (OS) between the two arms. However, whether the addition of VEN to HMA improves outcomes among subsets of patients with HR-MDS remains debated. We analyzed 1907 patients with HR-MDS from 31 centers in 9 countries who were treated with HMA monotherapy or HMA/VEN in the frontline setting (HMA monotherapy: n = 1773; HMA/VEN: n = 134). Responses were assessed centrally by two investigators using the IWG 2023 response criteria. Addition of VEN improved composite complete remission (cCR) rates (48.8% vs. 27.7%; p < 0.001) but not CR rates (17.1% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.16). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, cCR remained favorable for HMA/VEN vs. HMA monotherapy (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.56-3.96; p < 0.001). However, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in OS for HMA/VEN vs. HMA monotherapy (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.64-1.07; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses, patients with TP53 wild-type disease (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.29-0.74; p = 0.002) had a significant improvement in OS and those with ≥10% bone marrow blasts (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-1.01; p = 0.06) had a trend towards OS benefit with HMA/VEN.
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.