Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28835514›Full record

SynthesisThe oncologist2017

Salvage Therapy in Advanced Adult Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Alessandro Comandone, Fausto Petrelli, Antonella Boglione, Sandro Barni

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The oncologist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. How I treat soft tissue sarcomas.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Impact of Biomarker-Matched Therapies on Outcomes in Patients with Sarcoma Enrolled in Early-Phase Clinical Trials (SAMBA 101).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023
    Article
  7. Head-to-head evaluation of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alessandro ComandoneMedical Oncology Unit, Ospedale Humanitas Gradenigo, Torino, Italy.
Fausto PetrelliMedical Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, BG, Italy faupe@libero.it.
Antonella BoglioneMedical Oncology Unit, Ospedale Humanitas Gradenigo, Torino, Italy.
Sandro BarniMedical Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, BG, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Treviglio · ITOspedale Humanitas Gradenigo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognosis for patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (STS) is dismal, with median overall survival (OS) of 8-12 months. The role of second-line therapy has been inconsistently investigated over the last 20 years. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of salvage treatment in pretreated adult type STS, gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) excluded. MATERIAL AND

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized phase II/phase III trials exploring second- or beyond therapy lines in pretreated metastatic STS. Two independent investigators extracted data; the quality of eligible studies was resolved by consensus. Hazard ratio (HR) of death and progression (OS and progression-free survival [PFS]) and odds ratio (OR) for response rate (RR) were pooled in a fixed- or random-effects model according to heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and publication bias with funnel plots.

resultsOverall, 10 randomized trials were selected. The pooled HR for death was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.9). Second-line therapy reduced the risk of progression by 49% (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76). This translated into an absolute benefit in OS and PFS by 3.3 and 1.6 months, respectively. Finally, RR with new agents or chemotherapy doublets translated from 4.3% to 7.6% (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.22-2.50).

conclusionBetter survival is achieved in patients treated with salvage therapies (chemotherapy, as single or multiple agents or targeted biological agents). A 3-months gain in OS and an almost double RR is observed. Second lines also attained a reduction by 50% the risk of progression. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is some evidence that salvage therapies after first-line failure are able to improve outcome in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Trabectedin, gemcitabine-based therapy, and pazopanib are currently approved drugs used after conventional upfront treatment. This meta-analysis reviews the benefit of new agents used in randomized trials in comparison with no active treatments or older agents for recurrent/progressed STS. The results show that modern drugs confer a statistically significant 3-month benefit in terms of overall survival, and an increase in response rate. Despite a limited improvement in outcome, currently approved second-line therapy should be offered to patients with good performance status.

Indexed as

Disease-Free SurvivalDoxorubicinHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSalvage TherapySarcomaDoxorubicinChemotherapyMeta‐analysisPretreatedSecond lineSoft tissue sarcoma

Identifiers

PMID28835514
PMCPMC5728024
OpenAlexW2750123753

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.