Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25768333›Full record

ReviewCNS oncology2015

Treating recurrent glioblastoma: an update.

Carlos Kamiya-Matsuoka, Mark R Gilbert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CNS oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Targeting myeloid cell polarization to prevent GBM recurrence.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Carlos Kamiya-MatsuokaDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Mark R Gilbert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma, the most aggressive of the gliomas, has a high recurrence and mortality rate. The nature of this poor prognosis resides in the molecular heterogeneity and phenotypic features of this tumor. Despite research advances in understanding the molecular biology, it has been difficult to translate this knowledge into effective treatment. Nearly all will have tumor recurrence, yet to date very few therapies have established efficacy as salvage regimens. This challenge is further complicated by imaging confounders and to an even greater degree by the ever increasing molecular heterogeneity that is thought to be both sporadic and treatment-induced. The development of novel clinical trial designs to support the development and testing of novel treatment regimens and drug delivery strategies underscore the need for more precise techniques in imaging and better surrogate markers to help determine treatment response. This review summarizes recent approaches to treat patients with recurrent glioblastoma and considers future perspectives.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, Localbevacizumabglioblastomaimmunotherapylomustineoncolytic virusespseudoprogressionrecurrent gliomare-irradiationtargeted therapytemozolomide

Identifiers

PMID25768333
PMCPMC6093021

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.