Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25188452›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Treatment including anthracyclines versus treatment not including anthracyclines for childhood cancer.

Elvira C van Dalen, Martine F Raphaël, Huib N Caron, Leontien C M Kremer

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Variability in anthracycline dose conversions and cardiotoxicity monitoring: insights from hospital pharmacists on institutional protocols in oncology practice.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Drug Sensitivity Testing in Osteosarcoma: A Case Report.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Anthracycline-induced hypertension in pediatric cancer survivors: unveiling the long-term cardiovascular risks.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Review
  17. Anthracycline Toxicity: Light at the End of the Tunnel?Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elvira C van DalenDepartment of Paediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital/Academic Medical Center, PO Box 22660 (room TKsO-247), Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1100 DD.
Martine F Raphaël
Huib N Caron
Leontien C M Kremer
Academic Medical Center · NLEmma Kinderziekenhuis · NLWilhelmina Children's Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the most important adverse effects of anthracyclines is cardiotoxicity. A well-informed decision on the use of anthracyclines in the treatment of childhood cancers should be based on evidence regarding both antitumour efficacy and cardiotoxicity. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review.

objectivesTo compare antitumour efficacy (survival and tumour response) and cardiotoxicity of treatment including or not including anthracyclines in children with childhood cancer. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2013). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) (from 2002 to 2012) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (from 2002 to 2013). We have searched for ongoing trials in the ISRCTN register and the National Institute of Health register (both screened August 2013) (http://www.controlled-trials.com). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment of any type of childhood cancer with and without anthracyclines and reporting outcomes concerning antitumour efficacy or cardiotoxicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN

resultsWe identified RCTs for seven types of tumour, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) (three trials; 912 children), Wilms' tumour (one trial; 316 children), rhabdomyosarcoma and undifferentiated sarcoma (one trial; 413 children), Ewing's sarcoma (one trial; 94 children), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (one trial; 284 children), hepatoblastoma (one trial; 255 children) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (one trial; 394 children). All studies had methodological limitations. For ALL no evidence of a significant difference in antitumour efficacy was identified in the meta-analyses, but in most individual studies there was a suggestion of better antitumour efficacy in patients treated with anthracyclines. For both Wilms' tumour and Ewing's sarcoma a significant difference in event-free and overall survival in favour of treatment with anthracyclines was identified, although for Wilms' tumour the significant difference in overall survival disappeared with long-term follow-up. For rhabdomyosarcoma and undifferentiated sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and hepatoblastoma no difference in antitumour efficacy between the treatment groups was identified. The same was true for AML, with the exception of overall survival in a post hoc analysis in a subgroup of patients with relapsed core binding factor (CBF)-AML in which patients treated with anthracyclines did better. Clinical cardiotoxicity was evaluated in four RCTs; no significant difference between the treatment groups was identified, but in all individual studies there was a suggestion of a lower rate of clinical cardiotoxicity in patients who did not receive anthracyclines. None of the studies evaluated asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction. No RCTs were identified for other childhood cancers. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAt the moment no evidence from RCTs is available which underscores the use of anthracyclines in ALL. However, 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. For Wilms' tumour, rhabdomyosarcoma and undifferentiated sarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hepatoblastoma and AML only one RCT was available for each type and, therefore, no definitive conclusions can be made about the antitumour efficacy of treatment with or without anthracyclines in these tumours. For other childhood cancers no RCTs were identified and therefore no conclusions can be made about the antitumour efficacy of treatment with or without anthracyclines in these tumours.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnthracyclinesAntibiotics, AntineoplasticBone NeoplasmsChildChild, PreschoolHeart DiseasesHepatoblastomaHumansInfantInfant, NewbornKidney NeoplasmsLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteLiver NeoplasmsLymphoma, Non-HodgkinNeoplasmsAnthracyclinesAntibiotics, Antineoplastic

Identifiers

PMID25188452
PMCPMC11231984
OpenAlexW2112559529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.