ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2018
Third-line therapy in recurrent glioblastoma: is it another chance for bevacizumab?
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phase II study of weekly carboplatin in pretreated adult malignant gliomas.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Trial
- Treatment mechanism and research progress of bevacizumab for glioblastoma.American journal of cancer research · 2025Review
- Review
- Update on Chemotherapeutic Approaches and Management of Bevacizumab Usage for Glioblastoma.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Glioblastoma Cellular Origin and the Firework Pattern of Cancer Genesis from the Subventricular Zone.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2020Article
- Long-term survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab: a multicentric retrospective study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Article
- Regorafenib beyond the Second Line in Relapsed Glioblastoma: A Case Report and Literature Review.Case reports in oncologyArticle
- Bevacizumab alternating chemotherapy for improving the survival of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard glioblastoma therapy is long-lasting. Among second-line therapy, choices could be bevacizumab and nitrosoureas depending on National Agencies approval. There is no consensus on 3rd line therapy or clinical trials specifically designed for this setting.
methodsWe reviewed our institutional database on all consecutive patients who received 3rd line therapy for glioblastoma.
resultsData on 168 out of 1337 (12.6%) glioblastoma patients who underwent 3rd line therapy treatment were collected. Third line treatments were bevacizumab or chemotherapy (nitrosourea, temozolomide or carboplatin plus etoposide). Median progression free survival was 2.9 months and median survival time was 6.6 months from the start of 3rd line therapy. Bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (4.7 vs. 2.6 months, p = .020) and survival from 3rd line start (8.0 vs. 6.0 months, p = .014) in respect to chemotherapy. Toxicity of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 13.7% of patients. In multivariate analysis, survival in 3rd line treatment depends on MGMT methylation (p = .006) and treatment with Bevacizumab (p = .011).
conclusionsThird line therapy in selected glioblastoma patients may be feasible and well tolerated. Bevacizumab improved outcome in 3rd line in respect to chemotherapy.
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.