Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29102988›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Clinical and economic evaluation of modulated electrohyperthermia concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide 21/28 days regimen in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective analysis of a two-centre German cohort trial with systematic comparison and effect-to-treatment analysis.

Sergey V Roussakow

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Hyperthermia treatment advances for brain tumors.International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2020
    Review
  17. Quo Vadis Oncological Hyperthermia (2020)?Frontiers in oncology · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  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

1 author.

Sergey V RoussakowGalenic Research Institute, Moscow, Russia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2548-895X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of modulated electrohyperthermia (mEHT) concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide (ddTMZ) 21/28 days regimen versus ddTMZ 21/28 days alone in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM).

designA cohort of 54 patients with recurrent GBM treated with ddTMZ+mEHT in 2000-2005 was systematically retrospectively compared with five pooled ddTMZ 21/28 days cohorts (114 patients) enrolled in 2008-2013.

resultsThe ddTMZ+mEHT cohort had a not significantly improved mean survival time (mST) versus the comparator (p=0.531) after a significantly less mean number of cycles (1.56 vs 3.98, p<0.001). Effect-to-treatment analysis (ETA) suggests that mEHT significantly enhances the efficacy of the ddTMZ 21/28 days regimen (p=0.011), with significantly less toxicity (no grade III-IV toxicity vs 45%-92%, p<0.0001). An estimated maximal attainable median survival time is 10.10 months (9.10-11.10). Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, unlike ddTMZ 21/28 days alone, ddTMZ+mEHT is cost-effective versus the applicable cost-effectiveness thresholds €US$25 000-50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Budget impact analysis suggests a significant saving of €8 577 947/$11 201 761 with 29.1-38.5 QALY gained per 1000 patients per year. Cost-benefit analysis suggests that mEHT is profitable and will generate revenues between €3 124 574 and $6 458 400, with a total economic effect (saving+revenues) of €5 700 034 to $8 237 432 per mEHT device over an 8-year period.

conclusionsOur ETA suggests that mEHT significantly improves survival of patients receiving the ddTMZ 21/28 days regimen. Economic evaluation suggests that ddTMZ+mEHT is cost-effective, budget-saving and profitable. After confirmation of the results, mEHT could be recommended for the treatment of recurrent GBM as a cost-effective enhancer of ddTMZ regimens, and, probably, of the regular 5/28 days regimen. mEHT is applicable also as a single treatment if chemotherapy is impossible, and as a salvage treatment after the failure of chemotherapy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBrain NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisDacarbazineFemaleGermanyGlioblastomaHumansHyperthermia, InducedMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRegression AnalysisAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingDacarbazineTemozolomidecost-effectiveness analysisdose-dense temozolamide (ddtmzeffect-to-treatment analysis (eta)modulated electro-hyperthermia (meht)oncothermiarecurrent glioblastoma

Identifiers

PMID29102988
PMCPMC5722101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.