Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27067388›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

A study on the evaluation method and recent clinical efficacy of bevacizumab on the treatment of radiation cerebral necrosis.

Hongqing Zhuang, Xiangkun Yuan, Yi Zheng, Xubin Li, Joe Y Chang, Junjie Wang, Xiaoguang Wang, Zhiyong Yuan, Ping Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Hongqing ZhuangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, and Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Tianjin, China.
Xiangkun YuanDepartment of Radiotherapy, Hebei Province Cangzhou Hospital of integrated traditional and western medicine (Cangzhou No. 2 Hospital), Hebei, China.
Yi ZhengDaqing Oilfield General Hospital, Heilongjiang, China.
Xubin LiDepartment of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, and Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Tianjin, China.
Joe Y ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Junjie WangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Peking University 3rd Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoguang WangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, and Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Tianjin, China.
Zhiyong YuanDepartment of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, and Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Tianjin, China.
Ping WangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, and Tianjin Lung Cancer Center, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CNCangzhou Central Hospital · CNDaqing Oilfield General Hospital · CNPeking University · CNThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to investigate the efficacy of bevacizumab on the treatment of radiation cerebral necrosis, patients who were diagnosed with radiation cerebral necrosis by imaging after stereotactic radiotherapy were collected. Bevacizumab was applied at a dose of 5 mg/kg once every three weeks at least three times. The changes in cerebral necrosis symptoms before and after treatment, the cerebral edema volume, the cerebral necrosis volume, and the changes in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) strengthening phase signals of cerebral necrosis were used as the first observation point. The side effects of bevacizumab were used as the second observation point. Total of 14 radiation cerebral necrosis patients were treated with bevacizumab between June 2011 and February 2013 were collected. There were 12 symptomatic patients, of whom 10 patients (83.3%) had reduced symptoms. The edema index grades of nine patients (64.29%) improved. The cerebral necrosis volumes of 13 patients (92.86%) decreased. The T1 phase signal strengths of the intracranial enhanced MRIs of 12 patients (85.71%) significantly decreased. The clinical side effects of bevacizumab were mild. In conclusion, Preliminary results showed that treatment of radiation cerebral necrosis using bevacizumab was safe and effective. This treatment measure is worthy of further study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabBrainBrain NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNecrosisRadiosurgeryTreatment OutcomeAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumab

Identifiers

PMID27067388
PMCPMC4828710
OpenAlexW2339378386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.