↓ Skip to main content

TP53 and Decitabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
671 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
456 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
TP53 and Decitabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1605949
Pubmed ID
Authors

John S Welch, Allegra A Petti, Christopher A Miller, Catrina C Fronick, Michelle O'Laughlin, Robert S Fulton, Richard K Wilson, Jack D Baty, Eric J Duncavage, Bevan Tandon, Yi-Shan Lee, Lukas D Wartman, Geoffrey L Uy, Armin Ghobadi, Michael H Tomasson, Iskra Pusic, Rizwan Romee, Todd A Fehniger, Keith E Stockerl-Goldstein, Ravi Vij, Stephen T Oh, Camille N Abboud, Amanda F Cashen, Mark A Schroeder, Meagan A Jacoby, Sharon E Heath, Kierstin Luber, Megan R Janke, Andrew Hantel, Niloufer Khan, Madina J Sukhanova, Randall W Knoebel, Wendy Stock, Timothy A Graubert, Matthew J Walter, Peter Westervelt, Daniel C Link, John F DiPersio, Timothy J Ley

Abstract

Background The molecular determinants of clinical responses to decitabine therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are unclear. Methods We enrolled 84 adult patients with AML or MDS in a single-institution trial of decitabine to identify somatic mutations and their relationships to clinical responses. Decitabine was administered at a dose of 20 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day for 10 consecutive days in monthly cycles. We performed enhanced exome or gene-panel sequencing in 67 of these patients and serial sequencing at multiple time points to evaluate patterns of mutation clearance in 54 patients. An extension cohort included 32 additional patients who received decitabine in different protocols. Results Of the 116 patients, 53 (46%) had bone marrow blast clearance (<5% blasts). Response rates were higher among patients with an unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profile than among patients with an intermediate-risk or favorable-risk cytogenetic profile (29 of 43 patients [67%] vs. 24 of 71 patients [34%], P<0.001) and among patients with TP53 mutations than among patients with wild-type TP53 (21 of 21 [100%] vs. 32 of 78 [41%], P<0.001). Previous studies have consistently shown that patients with an unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profile and TP53 mutations who receive conventional chemotherapy have poor outcomes. However, in this study of 10-day courses of decitabine, neither of these risk factors was associated with a lower rate of overall survival than the rate of survival among study patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetic profiles. Conclusions Patients with AML and MDS who had cytogenetic abnormalities associated with unfavorable risk, TP53 mutations, or both had favorable clinical responses and robust (but incomplete) mutation clearance after receiving serial 10-day courses of decitabine. Although these responses were not durable, they resulted in rates of overall survival that were similar to those among patients with AML who had an intermediate-risk cytogenetic profile and who also received serial 10-day courses of decitabine. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687400 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 102 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 450 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 91 20%
Other 60 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 7%
Student > Master 27 6%
Other 105 23%
Unknown 100 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 182 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 2%
Other 36 8%
Unknown 111 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 203. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#194,245
of 25,440,205 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#3,807
of 32,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,982
of 415,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#85
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,440,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.