SynthesisBMC cancer2013
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in second- or later-line treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for soft-tissue sarcomas: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2025Pooled it
- Practice guidelines for management of uterine corpus cancer in Korea: a Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Consensus Statement.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2017Guideline
- A Systematic Review of the Benefits and Risks of Anticoagulation Following Traumatic Brain Injury.The Journal of head trauma rehabilitationPooled it
- Trial
- Health-related quality of life and pain with selinexor in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma.Future oncology (London, England) · 2021Trial
- Exposure-response relationship of olaratumab for survival outcomes and safety when combined with doxorubicin in patients with soft tissue sarcoma.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2019Trial
- Olaratumab and doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone for treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Trial
- A Phase II Study of Gemcitabine, Vincristine, and Cisplatin As Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma.Medicine · 2015Trial
- Efficacy of second and third lines of treatment in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a real-world study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Combination of ifosfamide and etoposide as a salvage regimen for previously treated soft tissue sarcomas: a retrospective single centre study.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- A DNA damage repair gene-associated signature predicts responses of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma to treatment with trabectedin.Molecular oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Targeting TJP1 attenuates cell-cell aggregation and modulates chemosensitivity against doxorubicin in leiomyosarcoma.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Resection of a Left Upper Quadrant Mass Leading to a Surprise Diagnosis.Case reports in surgery · 2020Article
- Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for soft tissue sarcomas.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019Review
- Review
- Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend anthracycline-based chemotherapy primarily with doxorubicin either as monotherapy or in combination with ifosfamide as the first-line treatment for most advanced STS subtypes. Therapeutic options after failure of doxorubicin and/or ifosfamide are limited. This study aimed to comprehensively review available data on the activity and safety of interventions in second- or later-line treatment of advanced STS.
methodsElectronic literature databases (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched from 1980 to 01 March 2012 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (both prospective and retrospective) evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with advanced STS pre-treated with anthracycline- and/or ifosfamide-based therapy.
resultsThe review identified six RCTs (one phase III and five phase II trials) and 94 non-randomised studies. Based on the primary trial endpoints, RCTs demonstrated favourable efficacy for pazopanib over placebo (PFS: 4.6 months vs. 1.6 months), gemcitabine plus dacarbazine over dacarbazine monotherapy (3-month PFS rate: 54.2% vs. 35.2%), and trabectedin 3-weekly schedule over weekly schedule (TTP: 3.7 months vs. 2.3 months. The non-randomised studies demonstrated heterogeneity in efficacy and safety results.
conclusionsAcross the RCTs, pazopanib over placebo, gemcitabine-dacarbazine over dacarbazine, and trabectedin 3-weekly over weekly regimen clearly demonstrated a PFS advantage in the second- and later-line treatment of advanced STS. With only one phase III trial in this setting, there is a clear need for additional comparative trials to better understand the risk: benefit ratios of available agents and combinations.
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.