Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic factor analysis of the survival of elderly patients with AML in the MRC AML11 and LRF AML14 trials

Open access
Wheatley, Keith, Brookes, Cassandra L., Howman, Andrew J., Goldstone, Anthony H., Milligan, Donald W., Prentice, Archibald G., Moorman, Anthony V., Burnett, Alan K., on behalf of the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Haematological Oncology Clinical Studies Group and Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Subgroup·2009·British Journal of Haematology

Abstract

Summary: This analysis, of 2483 patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) aged 60+ years entered into two UK trials, was performed to determine the baseline parameters related to survival and to develop a risk index. The Medical Research Council (MRC) AML11 trial (n = 1071) was used to develop the index; this was validated using data from the Leukaemia Research fund (LRF) AML14 trial on 1137 intensively (AML14I) and 275 non‐intensively (AML14NI) treated patients. In AML11, cytogenetic group, age, white blood count, performance status and type of AML (de novo, secondary) were all highly significantly related to prognosis in multivariate analysis. The regression coefficients were used to define good, standard and poor risk groups, with 1‐year survival of 53%, 43% and 16% respectively (P < 0·0001). The risk index showed very good discrimination in both AML14I and AML14NI (both P < 0·0001), thereby providing validation, although survival in all groups was very poor in AML14NI. The risk factors for survival in older AML patients were similar to those in younger ones and discrimination of patient groups with relatively good to very poor prognosis was possible. These risk groups apply to both intensively and non‐intensively treated patients. Randomized trials of intensive versus non‐intensive therapy are needed to determine which types of patient should be given which type of treatment.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07663.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Wheatley, K., Brookes, C. L., Howman, A. J., Goldstone, A. H., Milligan, D. W., Prentice, A. G., Moorman, A. V., Burnett, A. K., & on behalf of the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Haematological Oncology Clinical Studies Group and Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Subgroup
Venue
British Journal of Haematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05-11
Volume
145
Issue
5
Pages
598-605
ISSN
  • 0007-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2141
OpenAlex
W2034058960
Cited by
236
References
1
FWCI
13.27
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: Prognostic factor analysis of the survival of elderly patients with AML in the MRC AML11 and LRF AML14 trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07663.x
The paper
Wheatley, K., Brookes, C. L., Howman, A. J., Goldstone, A. H., Milligan, D. W., Prentice, A. G., Moorman, A. V., Burnett, A. K., & on behalf of the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Haematological Oncology Clinical Studies Group and Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Subgroup. (2009). Prognostic factor analysis of the survival of elderly patients with AML in the MRC AML11 and LRF AML14 trials. British Journal of Haematology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07663.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.