Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28762004›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2017

GBM radiosensitizers: dead in the water…or just the beginning?

Ranjit S Bindra, Anthony J Chalmers, Sydney Evans, Mark Dewhirst

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

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

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. NFrontiers in oncology · 2019
    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

4 authors.

Ranjit S BindraDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. ranjit.bindra@yale.edu.
Anthony J ChalmersInstitute of Cancer Sciences & Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Sydney EvansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19081, USA.
Mark DewhirstRadiation Oncology Department, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The finding that most GBMs recur either near or within the primary site after radiotherapy has fueled great interest in the development of radiosensitizers to enhance local control. Unfortunately, decades of clinical trials testing a wide range of novel therapeutic approaches have failed to yield any clinically viable radiosensitizers. However, many of  the previous radiosensitizing strategies were not based on clear pre-clinical evidence, and in many cases blood-barrier penetration was not considered. Furthermore, DNA repair inhibitors have only recenly arrived in the clinic, and likely represent potent agents for glioma radiosensitization. Here, we present recent progress in the use of small molecule DNA damage response inhibitors as GBM radiosensitizers. In addition, we discuss the latest progress in targeting hypoxia and oxidative stress for GBM radiosensitization.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalAnimalsBrain NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyDNA DamageGlioblastomaHumansHypoxiaRadiation-Sensitizing AgentsRadiation-Sensitizing AgentsDNA damage responseDNA repairHypoxiaRadiosensitizer

Identifiers

PMID28762004

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.