ArticleHaematologica2026
Hypomethylating agents plus venetoclax
Article in Haematologica, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abnormalities in chromosomes 5 and 7 are frequently identified in acute myeloid leukemia, are particularly enriched in therapy- and myelodysplasia-related disease, and confer an adverse prognosis. Given the high risk of relapse, allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) is typically recommended for patients achieving complete remission following induction chemotherapy. We currently lack prospective data to decide whether intensive chemotherapy (IC) or a hypomethylating agent + venetoclax (HMA+ven) is the superior frontline treatment approach for these patients. Hence, we performed a retrospective study in a large cohort of patients with acute myeloid leukemia and deletion 7 (-7) and/or deletion 5 or 5q (-5/ del5q) comparing outcomes between patients treated with IC or HMA+ven. Remission rates after IC and HMA+ven were found to be comparable (43% vs. 52%, P=0.2). When adjusting for patient and disease characteristics in multivariable analysis, treatment with IC vs. HMA+ven did not significantly impact overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]=1.02, P=0.9202), while age at diagnosis (HR=1.02, P=0.0324), prior myeloid disease (HR=1.42, P=0.0266), monosomal karyotype (HR=1.48, P=0.029), complex karyotype (HR=1.61, P=0.0156), and KRAS mutations (HR=2.21, P=0.0063) were associated with inferior survival. There was also no difference in overall survival in patients age 60-75 years by treatment strategy (7.8 vs. 6.4 months, P=0.56), motivating future randomized trials of IC versus HMA+ven in this older population to inform optimal therapy. Importantly, overall survival was significantly improved in patients undergoing allo-SCT irrespective of frontline therapy, and allo-SCT consolidation was the most important predictor of long-term survival in multivariable analysis (HR=0.36, P<0.0001).
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.