ArticleOncology letters2017
Thalidomide and lenalidomide for recurrent ovarian cancer: A systematic review of the literature.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative network analysis identifies potential targets and drugs for ovarian cancer.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
- Endocrine disrupting chemicals: Impact on human health, wildlife and the environment.Science progress · 2019Review
- Mechanisms of Vasculogenic Mimicry in Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of thalidomide and lenalidomide, two immunomodulatory drugs with anti-angiogenic properties, in women with recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted whereby Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using terms associated with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. Published English language case reports, trials and studies that described the safety and efficacy of thalidomide or lenalidomide alone, or in combination with other drugs were reviewed. A total of 16 clinical studies involving 394 patients treated with thalidomide (n=188), lenalidomide (n=77) and 129 controls were identified, including five case reports (n=6), three case series (n=45), two phase I trials (n=27), four phase II trials (n=109), and two randomized phase III trials (n=207). In a pooled analysis of thalidomide investigated as a single drug, the overall clinical benefit rate was 43% (43/99) with a mean time to progression of 5.6 months. The response rate (complete response + partial response) was 25%. In a phase III trial, the combination of thalidomide and topotecan significantly increased the overall response rate compared with topotecan alone [14/30 (47%) vs. 8/39 (21%)]. In another phase III trial involving women with asymptomatic biochemical recurrence, compared with tamoxifen, thalidomide was not more effective. Lenalidomide was investigated in three phase I trials and in one phase II trial with an overall clinical benefit rate of 52% (34/65), and a mean time to progression of 4.6 months. The response rate (complete response + partial response) was 6%. Systemic toxicity of both drugs was noted in >77% of patients with pneumonitis/pneumonia, fatigue, neuropathy and venous thromboembolism reported as the most common side effects. Thalidomide and lenalidomide are moderately active in recurrent ovarian cancer. Thalidomide possesses synergistic effects with topotecan. The toxicity of both drugs is considerable and there is a greater amount of data available for thalidomide compared to lenalidomide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.