Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28658891›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2017

Comparative Study of Adjuvant Temozolomide Six Cycles Versus Extended 12 Cycles in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme.

Menal Bhandari, Ajeet Kumar Gandhi, Bharti Devnani, Pavnesh Kumar, Daya Nand Sharma, Pramod Kumar Julka

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Menal BhandariSenior Resident, Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Ajeet Kumar GandhiAssistant Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Bharti DevnaniSenior Resident, Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Pavnesh KumarSenior Resident, Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Daya Nand SharmaProfessor, Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Pramod Kumar JulkaProfessor, Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStudies have shown promising survival with the use of Extended Temozolomide (E-TMZ) as compared to Conventional six cycles of Temozolomide (C-TMZ) in malignant gliomas; however, the reports are mostly limited to retrospective studies with significant bias.

aimThis study assesses the impact of six versus 12 cycles of adjuvant Temozolomide (TMZ) on Overall Survival (OS) in newly diagnosed postoperative patients of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM). MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween January 2012 and July 2013, 40 postoperative patients of GBM between age 18-65 years and Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) ≥70 were included. Patients were randomized to receive radiation (60 Gray in 30 fractions over six weeks) with concomitant TMZ (75 mg/m

resultsMedian number of adjuvant TMZ cycles was six and 12 in C-TMZ and E-TMZ arm respectively. Overall, 5% and 15% patients respectively in C-TMZ and E-TMZ arm had haematological toxicity ≥ 3 in grade. Median follow up in C-TMZ and E-TMZ arm were 14.65 months and 19.85 months. Median PFS was 12.8 months and 16.8 months in C-TMZ and E-TMZ arm respectively (p=0.069). Median OS was 15.4 months vs. 23.8 months in C-TMZ and E-TMZ arm respectively (p=0.044).

conclusionOur study showed that E-TMZ is well tolerated and leads to a significant increase in PFS as well as OS in newly diagnosed patients of GBM. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to validate the findings of our study.

Indexed as

Extended chemotherapyOverall survivalRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID28658891
PMCPMC5483793

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.