Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18521398›Full record

ArticleSarcoma2004

A Phase II Study of Docetaxel for the Treatment of Recurrent Osteosarcoma.

Anne McTiernan, Jeremy S Whelan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sarcoma, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2014
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Management of osteosarcoma.Current treatment options in oncology · 2006
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anne McTiernanMeyerstein Institute of Oncology Middlesex Hospital UCL Hospitals NHS Trust Mortimer St London W1T 3AA UK.
Jeremy S Whelan
North Middlesex Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the response and toxicity of docetaxel in recurrent osteosarcoma and related spindle cell tumours of bone. PATIENTS AND

methodsFourteen patients, 10 males and four females, were enrolled, median age 30.5 years (range, 17-46). Diagnosis was: conventional osteosarcoma, 12 patients; periosteal osteosarcoma, one patient; and malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone, one patient. Initial chemotherapy had been with doxorubicin and cisplatin in 10 patients, and multiagent regimens in four. Nine had been treated with second line chemotherapy before receiving docetaxel. Thirteen patients had lung metastases and one intra-abdominal disease. Docetaxel 100 mg/malpha(2) was given as a 1-h infusion every 3 weeks. Response was assessed every two cycles to a maximum of six.

resultsA total of 43 cycles were given, median of two per patient (range 1-6). Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. A single partial remission was seen, for a response rate of 8%. Two patients had stable disease, and one patient a mixed response. Forty cycles were evaluable for toxicity. The principle toxicity was haematological, with a median neutrophil count of 0.9 (range 0-9.6). There were four episodes of neutropenic sepsis (10%). The only non-haematological toxicity >/=grade 3 was stomatitis, occurring in just one patient. There were no toxic deaths.

conclusionDocetaxel at this dose and schedule is well tolerated, but is not associated with significant activity in patients with relapsed osteosarcoma.

Identifiers

PMID18521398
PMCPMC2395610
OpenAlexW1998332961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.