All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe AML Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the AML Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The AML Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The strict eligibility criteria for clinical trials in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) often result in a lack of generalizability to real-world patient outcomes.1 In addition, accounting for geographical differences in treatment outcomes can be challenging, and the wide variation in clinical practice has become more complex, particularly regarding the introduction of novel first-line therapies.1
Recently, Tiong et al.1 published a comparative analysis in Blood Cancer that highlights the similarities and differences in the standard of care in clinical trials vs clinical practice across Australia. We summarize the key findings below.
Key learnings |
|
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox