SynthesisMedicine2015
Do glioma patients derive any therapeutic benefit from taking a higher cumulative dose of temozolomide regimens?: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Glioblastoma-Targeted Therapies in Phases II, III, IV Clinical Trials.Cancers · 2021Review
- The impact of extended adjuvant temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Oncology reviews · 2020Article
- On glioblastoma and the search for a cure: where do we stand?Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2017Review
- Comparative Study of Adjuvant Temozolomide Six Cycles Versus Extended 12 Cycles in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Article
- β-escin selectively targets the glioblastoma-initiating cell population and reduces cell viability.Oncotarget · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Temozolomide (TMZ) is an oral alkylating agent with established effects on the central nervous system of glioblastoma (GBM) patients. Clinical trials have demonstrated a significant impact on overall survival (OS) with TMZ. Ever since, several TMZ regimens have been designed to improve treatment efficacy by increasing the cumulative dose per cycle. We report a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate different treatment schedules of TMZ in GBM patients.All searches that were conducted in the Cochrane library, Science Direct, and PubMed Databases, and 3 randomized controlled trials (1141 patients) were included. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes to be pooled.Unexpectedly, this analysis did not reveal any OS or PFS advantage for the high cumulative dose (HCD) regimen compared with the normal cumulative dose regimen (1141 total patients; hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.22, P = 0.31). Then after analyzing the characteristics of the results from each trial, we found that the regimen with a higher peak concentration during a short-term period (daily doses ≥150 mg/m/d within ≤7 days/cycle) always had a more superior clinical benefit. So we generated a new pooled HR of 1.10 with a 95% CI of 0.96-1.25 (P = 0.17), which prefers the high peak concentration schedule even without a significant difference. The adverse outcome also indicates a significant increased risk of leukopenia (risk ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.03-2.46, P = 0.04) among the HCD group.Our study suggests that increasing the cumulative dose per cycle is not an ideal way to improve the efficacy of TMZ, and it will lead to increased risk for leukopenia. Future trials should be designed to examine schedules of higher peak concentration rather than the cumulative dose per cycle.
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.