ReviewNeuro-oncology2011
Clinical trial end points for high-grade glioma: the evolving landscape.
Review in Neuro-oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimized Image-Based Surrogate Endpoints in Targeted Therapies for Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- A randomized phase II study of everolimus in combination with chemoradiation in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0913.Neuro-oncology · 2018Trial
- AVAREG: a phase II, randomized, noncomparative study of fotemustine or bevacizumab for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.Neuro-oncology · 2016Trial
- Enzastaurin before and concomitant with radiation therapy, followed by enzastaurin maintenance therapy, in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma without MGMT promoter hypermethylation.Neuro-oncology · 2013Trial
- Assessment of intra-observer variability in measurement of high-grade brain tumors.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2012Trial
- Breaking Barriers: Advancements in CNS Drug Delivery for Glioblastoma.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- From Classical to Emerging Biomarkers of Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors. An Evidence-Based Review with a Focus on Gliomas.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Response Assessment in Neuro Oncology (AI-RANO), part 2: recommendations for standardisation, validation, and good clinical practice.The Lancet. Oncology · 2024Review
- Leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors: A Society for Neuro-Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus review on clinical management and future directions.Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Comprehensive analysis of bulk, single-cell RNA sequencing, and spatial transcriptomics revealed IER3 for predicting malignant progression and immunotherapy efficacy in glioma.Cancer cell international · 2024Article
- Post-chemo-radiotherapy response and pseudo-progression evaluation on glioma cell types by multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Review
- Review
- Leveraging external data in the design and analysis of clinical trials in neuro-oncology.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Review
- Developing Real-world Evidence-Ready Datasets: Time for Clinician Engagement.Current oncology reports · 2020Review
- Monitoring of Neurocognitive Function in the Care of Patients with Brain Tumors.Current treatment options in neurology · 2019Review
- Optimizing Neuro-Oncology Imaging: A Review of Deep Learning Approaches for Glioma Imaging.Cancers · 2019Review
- Article
- Current Challenges and Opportunities in Treating Glioblastoma.Pharmacological reviews · 2018Article
- Rechallenge with bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma progressing off therapy.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 13 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To review the strengths and weaknesses of primary and auxiliary end points for clinical trials among patients with high-grade glioma (HGG). Recent advances in outcome for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent HGG, coupled with the development of multiple promising therapeutics with myriad antitumor actions, have led to significant growth in the number of clinical trials for patients with HGG. Appropriate clinical trial design and the incorporation of optimal end points are imperative to efficiently and effectively evaluate such agents and continue to advance outcome. Growing recognition of limitations weakening the reliability of traditional clinical trial primary end points has generated increasing uncertainty of how best to evaluate promising therapeutics for patients with HGG. The phenomena of pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse have made imaging-based end points, including overall radiographic response and progression-free survival, problematic. Although overall survival is considered the "gold-standard" end point, recently identified active salvage therapies such as bevacizumab may diminish the association between presalvage therapy and overall survival. Finally, advances in imaging as well as the assessment of patient function and well being have strengthened interest in auxiliary end points assessing these aspects of patient care and outcome. Better appreciation of the strengths and limitations of primary end points will lead to more effective clinical trial strategies. Technical advances in imaging as well as improved survival for patients with HGG support the further development of auxiliary end points evaluating novel imaging approaches as well as measures of patient function and well being.
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.