Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15160290›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2004

Clinical evaluation of in vitro chemosensitivity testing: the example of uveal melanoma.

P Terheyden, E B Bröcker, J C Becker

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Management of liver metastases from uveal melanoma.The British journal of surgery · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Treosulfan and gemcitabine.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2005
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P TerheydenJulius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg, Department of Dermatology, Josef-Schneider-Strasse 2, Building 13, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.
E B Bröcker
J C Becker
University of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeResults from in vitro chemosensitivity testing recommend treosulfan/gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV uveal melanoma.

methodsTwenty patients received treosulfan 3,500 mg/m2 followed by gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 repeated on day 29. In cases of prior chemotherapy only 75% of these dosages were used.

resultsWithout any patient achieving an objective response, 25% of patients (95% confidence interval, 8.6-49.1%) had stabilisation of disease. This stabilisation was associated with a prolonged median overall survival of 17 months compared with 7 months for the patients with progressive disease. First-line treatment was not associated with better response or survival although prognostic parameters did not significantly differ from that of other patients.

conclusionsThe results are disappointing and question the value of individualized chemotherapy based on in vitro assays.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlkaline PhosphataseAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBusulfanChoroid NeoplasmsDeoxycytidineDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleGemcitabineHumansKarnofsky Performance StatusMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedAlkaline PhosphataseBusulfanDeoxycytidineGemcitabinetreosulfan

Identifiers

PMID15160290
PMCPMC12161860
OpenAlexW1990389533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.