Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28693286›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2017

Bevacizumab as a last-line treatment for glioblastoma following failure of radiotherapy, temozolomide and lomustine.

Katharina J Wenger, Marlies Wagner, Se-Jong You, Kea Franz, Patrick N Harter, Michael C Burger, Martin Voss, Michael W Ronellenfitsch, Emmanouil Fokas, Joachim P Steinbach and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Katharina J WengerUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Marlies WagnerUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Se-Jong YouUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Kea FranzUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Patrick N HarterUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael C BurgerUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin VossUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael W RonellenfitschUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Emmanouil FokasUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Joachim P SteinbachUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Oliver BährUniversity Hospital and University Cancer Center, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In previous trials, bevacizumab failed to prolong the overall survival time in newly diagnosed glioblastoma and at the first recurrence. Randomized clinical trials at the second or further recurrence following the failure of radiotherapy, temozolomide and lomustine, and retrospective analyses focusing on this specific cohort, are not yet available. A total of 62 patients with glioblastoma who received bevacizumab after the failure of standard care, including radiotherapy, temozolomide and lomustine, were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics, previous treatment details, concomitant therapy, response based on the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times and rates were evaluated. Furthermore, the PFS and OS times and rates were analyzed for responders and non-responders. Of the patients, 54.8% (n=34) responded to treatment [complete response (CR) 3.2%, n=2; partial response (PR) 51.6%, n=32]. The median PFS time was 3.5 months and the median OS time was 7.5 months. The PFS rate at 6 months was 21.5% and the OS rate at 12 months was 11.5%. Responders (CR or PR) experienced a superior median PFS time compared with non-responders (i.e. stable or progressive disease; 5.4 vs. 1.9 months; P<0.0001) and a superior PFS rate at 6 months (34.9 vs. 7.1%; P<0.0001). The median OS time (8.6 vs. 6.4 months; P<0.0001) and OS rate at 12 months (21.3 vs. 0%; P<0.0001) were also superior in patients who exhibited a response to bevacizumab treatment. In conclusion, the objective response rate and the PFS and OS times and rates indicate that bevacizumab has activity in patients with glioblastoma following the failure of radiotherapy, temozolomide, and lomustine. A randomized trial comparing bevacizumab with best supportive care in these patients is advised.

Indexed as

bevacizumabglioblastomalast-line therapyoverall survivalprogression-free survivalresponse ratethird-line therapy

Identifiers

PMID28693286
PMCPMC5494648
OpenAlexW2618874742

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.