The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A simple, robust, validated and highly predictive index for the determination of risk‐directed therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia derived from the MRC AML 10 trial
Open accessAbstract
Data on 1711 patients, aged up to 55 years, in the MRC AML 10 trial were used to create a prognostic index for use in risk‐directed therapy decision making for younger patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Two parameters, response after course 1 and cytogenetics, were strongly predictive of outcome. For patients with complete remission, partial remission and resistant disease, 5‐year survival from the start of course 2 was 53%, 44% and 22% and relapse rates were 46%, 48% and 69% respectively, and for patients with favourable, intermediate and adverse karyotypic abnormalities, survival was 72%, 43% and 17% and relapse rates were 34%, 51% and 75% respectively (all P < 0.0001). Patients with FAB type M3 but no cytogenetic t(15;17) also had a low relapse rate (29%). These three factors were combined to give three risk groups: good (favourable karyotype or M3, irrespective of response status or presence of additional abnormalities), standard (neither good nor poor), poor (adverse karyotype or resistant disease, and no good‐risk features). Survival for these three groups was 70%, 48% and 15% respectively and relapse rates were 33%. 50% and 78% (both P < 0.0001). The index is simple (based on just three parameters), robust (derived from 1711 patients), highly discriminatory (55% survival difference between good and poor risk) and validated, so can be applied in the clinical setting to assist with therapeutic decisions as in the current AML 12 trial.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Döhner, H., Estey, E. H., Amadori, S., Appelbaum, F. R., Büchner, T., Burnett, A. K., Dombret, H., Fenaux, P., Grimwade, D., Larson, R. A., et al. (2010) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2009-07-235358 · Cited by 3,373
Self-citationBreems, D. A., Van Putten, W. L. J., De Greef, G. E., Van Zelderen-Bhola, S. L., Gerssen-Schoorl, K. B. J., Mellink, C. H. M., Nieuwint, A., Jotterand, M., Hagemeijer, A., Beverloo, H. B., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2008.16.0259 · Cited by 580
Gamis, A. S., Alonzo, T. A., Meshinchi, S., Sung, L., Gerbing, R. B., Raimondi, S. C., Hirsch, B. A., Kahwash, S. B., Heerema-McKenney, A., Winter, L., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.55.3628 · Cited by 486
Goldstone, A. H., Burnett, A. K., Wheatley, K., Smith, A. G., Hutchinson, R. M., & Clark, R. E. (2001) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood.v98.5.1302 · Cited by 438
Self-citationLöwenberg, B., van Putten, W., Theobald, M., Gmür, J., Verdonck, L., Sonneveld, P., Fey, M., Schouten, H., de Greef, G., Ferrant, A., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa025406 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Wheatley, K., Burnett, A. K., Goldstone, A. H., Gray, R. G., Hann, I. M., Harrison, C. J., Rees, J. K. H., Stevens, R. F., & Walker, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Haematology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-79
- ISSN
- 0007-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2141
- OpenAlex
- W2123986795
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A simple, robust, validated and highly predictive index for the determination of risk‐directed therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia derived from the MRC AML 10 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01684.x
- The paper
- Wheatley, K., Burnett, A. K., Goldstone, A. H., Gray, R. G., Hann, I. M., Harrison, C. J., Rees, J. K. H., Stevens, R. F., & Walker, H. (1999). A simple, robust, validated and highly predictive index for the determination of risk‐directed therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia derived from the MRC AML 10 trial. British Journal of Haematology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01684.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.