ReviewCancers2026
ELN vs. IPSS-M in MDS/AML: Which Prognostic System Should Guide Clinical Decision-Making?
Review in Cancers, 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
The recognition of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML) as a distinct overlap entity by the International Consensus Classification (ICC) has introduced new challenges in prognostication and therapeutic decision-making. Defined by 10-19% blasts in the absence of AML-defining genetic abnormalities, MDS/AML occupies a biological continuum between myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is characterized by unique molecular features, patterns of clonal evolution, and clinical behavior that are not fully captured by prognostic systems originally developed for either disease. Consequently, the emergence of this entity has renewed interest in how existing classification and risk stratification frameworks should be applied to overlap disease. This review examines the biological basis of MDS/AML and critically evaluates the strengths and limitations of the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) and the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) classifications. Available evidence supports IPSS-M as the preferred framework for baseline disease-specific prognostic assessment, with preserved prognostic discrimination in this entity. In contrast, direct application of ELN 2022 results in substantial adverse-risk compression and limited prognostic discrimination. Emerging evidence suggests that disease-specific recalibration and treatment-contextual frameworks, including ELN 2022 modified and ELN 2024 Less-Intensive, may provide additional information, although validation specifically in MDS/AML remains limited and largely retrospective. Collectively, current evidence supports a complementary rather than competitive approach. IPSS-M should provide the disease-specific prognostic foundation, whereas ELN-based assessment may add AML-oriented molecular and treatment-contextual information relevant to therapeutic planning. Neither framework should independently determine treatment intensity. Instead, optimal management should integrate disease-specific prognosis with patient fitness and transplant eligibility, molecular characteristics, treatment context, and dynamic response assessment. Emerging approaches incorporating clonal hierarchy, single-cell analysis, epigenomic and multi-omic profiling, measurable residual disease, and artificial intelligence (AI)- and machine learning (ML)-based predictive models may further refine prognostic assessment, improve prediction of treatment response, and facilitate increasingly individualized therapeutic strategies in MDS/AML, although their clinical application remains investigational.
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.