ArticleBone marrow transplantation2026
Impact of Wilms' tumor 1 gene (WT1) mutation on outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: a retrospective multicenter cohort study from the ALWP/EBMT registry.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 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.
- Next-generation CAR-T therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: bridging innovation with clinical translation.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared transplantation outcomes of AML patients with WT1 mutation (mWT1), identified by next-generation sequencing, to those of patients with wild-type WT1 AML (wtWT1). 703 patients were included, 50 with mWT1 and 653 with wtWT1. Patients with mWT1 were younger (median age: 45.6 vs. 56.4 years, p < 0.001), with a higher proportion of females (66% vs. 47.6%, p = 0.01), higher frequency of mutations in FLT3-ITD (38.3% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.01) and CEBPA (15.8% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.03). Donors were matched siblings in 30.6%, unrelated in 45.6%, and haploidentical in 22.1%. A higher percentage of mWT1 vs. wtWT1 patients received in vivo T-cell depletion (66% vs. 51%, p = 0.03) and 58% vs. 47.1% received myeloablative conditioning. 49 patients with mWT1 were matched to 127 wtWT1 patients in matched-pairs analysis. Outcomes (mWT1 vs. wtWT1) were not significantly different: relapse (2 y: 28.8% vs. 30.4%, HR: 1.14, p = 0.64), NRM (2 y: 15.5% vs. 9.9%, HR: 1.41, p = 0.49), LFS (2 y: 55.7% vs. 59.6%, HR: 1.21, p = 0.39), OS (2 y: 65.4% vs. 73.3%, p = 0.66), and chronic GVHD (2 y:24.3% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.95). In conclusion, WT1 mutation did not influence transplantation outcomes of AML patients in CR1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.