Trial reportJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2008
Oral versus intravenous ibandronic acid: a comparison of treatment options for metastatic bone disease.
Trial report in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Incidence and consequences of bone metastases in lung cancer patients.Journal of bone oncology · 2013Article
- External validity of the Tokuhashi score in patients with vertebral metastasis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2012Article
- Patient-reported outcome instruments used to assess pain and functioning in studies of bisphosphonate treatment for bone metastases.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis trial is the first to compare directly the clinical response to and safety of oral and intravenous (IV) ibandronic acid for metastatic bone disease.
methodsPatients > or =18 years with breast, prostate, lung, urogenital or colon cancer received IV ibandronic acid 6 mg infused over 15 min every 28 days or oral ibandronic acid 50 mg/day. Clinical response was determined using bone scintigraphy, radiography and serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (S-CTX) at months 3-6. Adverse events and biochemical safety measures were recorded.
resultsA total of 84.6 and 88.5% of patients had a complete/partial response to IV and oral ibandronic acid, respectively. Median percentage decreases in S-CTX were -39 and -35%, respectively. Bone pain scores decreased and analgesic use increased from month 0-3 and were stable from months 3-6. Both formulations improved physical and functioning scores.
conclusionOral and IV ibandronic acid for bone metastases have similar efficacy and tolerability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.