ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2013
Advantages of dose-dense methotrexate protocol for primary central nervous system lymphoma: comparison of two different protocols at a single institution.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2013. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The risk of venous thromboembolism in primary central nervous system lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Review
- Successful Treatment of Acute Uric Acid Nephropathy with Rasburicase in a Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma Patient Showing a Dramatic Response to Methotrexate-Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Prospective evaluation of high-dose methotrexate pharmacokinetics in adult patients with lymphoma using novel determinants of kidney function.Clinical and translational science · 2022Observational
- Complete and Durable Responses in Primary Central Nervous System Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder with Zidovudine, Ganciclovir, Rituximab, and Dexamethasone.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy and toxicity of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX)-based chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed in patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). All immunocompetent patients with histologically or radiographically diagnosed PCNSL treated between 2006 and 2012 at Niigata University Hospital were enrolled. Thirty-eight patients with a diagnosis of PCNSL were treated with one of two regimens during different time periods. During the first period, from 2006 to 2009, three 3-week cycles of MPV (MTX + procarbazine + vincristine) were administered (MPV3 group). In the second period, from 2010 to 2012, five 2-week cycles of MTX were administered (MTX5 group). High-dose cytarabine was used in both groups following HD-MTX-based chemotherapy. Whole-brain radiotherapy was used for patients who did not attain a complete response (CR) based on magnetic resonance images. In the MPV3 group, 20 out of 23 patients (87%) completed the planned treatment. The CR rate after chemotherapy was 30%, and 57% after radiation therapy. Thirteen out of 15 patients (87%) in the MTX5 group completed the planned treatment. The CR rates after chemotherapy and radiation therapy were 53% and 93%, respectively. Renal dysfunction was assessed by measuring creatinine clearance rates, which were very similar in both groups. In terms of hematologic toxicity and other adverse reactions, there was no significant difference between the two groups. In conclusion, dose-dense MTX chemotherapy improved outcome with acceptable toxicity compared with the treatment schedule for three cycles of MPV treatment.
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.