ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
Optimizing venetoclax duration with hypomethylating agents for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: impact on response and survival.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive view on chemotherapy-free management of acute myeloid leukemia by using venetoclax in combination with targeted and/or immune therapies.Cell death discovery · 2025Review
- Venetoclax schedule in AML: 7 vs 14 vs 21 vs 28 days.Blood cancer journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The addition of venetoclax to hypomethylating agents (HMAs) is standard for older adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, prolonged venetoclax (VEN) exposure can cause cytopenias and infections, raising questions about optimal duration. We conducted a single‑center retrospective study of 102 patients treated between 2018 and 2025 with azacitidine or decitabine plus VEN administered for 14 (n = 22), 21 (n = 48), or 28 (n = 32) days per 28‑day cycle. Baseline cytogenetic and molecular profiling, responses by 2022/2024 ELN criteria, measurable residual disease (MRD), cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), disease‑free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using competing‑risks regression and Cox models. Median age was 68 years and patients received a median of 4 cycles. Composite remission (CR/CRi/CRh/MLFS) was 66.7%, with MRD negativity in 75.0% of responders. Remission and MRD negativity rates did not differ significantly across VEN‑duration cohorts. Median OS and DFS were 17.3 and 12.3 months, respectively, with no significant differences in OS, DFS, and CIR between 14‑, 21‑, and 28‑day cohorts. Grade ≥ 3 cytopenias and transfusion independence rates also did not differ significantly. In this cohort, shortening VEN exposure to 14 or 21 days did not show a significant difference in response, survival, relapse risk, and toxicity profiles relative to a 28‑day schedule in our cohort. These findings support further prospective evaluation of reduced VEN durations in this population.
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.