SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2018
Tumor-treating fields as a fourth treating modality for glioblastoma: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy with survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Tumor-Treating Fields for the treatment of glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neuro-oncology practice · 2021Review
- A contemporary update on glioblastoma: molecular biology, current management, and a vision towards bio-adaptable personalized care.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Review
- The Value of Tumor Treating Fields in Glioblastoma.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2020Article
- Review
- OptimalTTF-1: Enhancing tumor treating fields therapy with skull remodeling surgery. A clinical phase I trial in adult recurrent glioblastoma.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to review the available literature on patients suffering from glioblastoma treated with tumor-treating fields (TTFields) plus radio chemotherapy or conventional radio chemotherapy alone, to compare the efficacy and safety of the two methods.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Six studies met the inclusion criteria incorporating 1806 patients for the qualitative analysis and 1769 for the quantitative analysis.
resultsThis study reveals increased median overall survival (weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.37, 4.21]; p < 0.00001), survival at 1 year (odds ratio (OR) 1.81 [95% CI 1.41, 2.32]; p < 0.00001) and 2 years (OR 2.33 [95% CI 1.73, 3.14]; p < 0.00001), and median progression-free survival (WMD 2.35 [95% CI 1.76, 2.93]; p < 0.00001) along with progression-free survival at 6 months (WMD 6.86 [95% CI 5.91, 7.81]; p < 0.00001) for the patients treated with TTFields. Survival at 3 years was comparable between the two groups. TTFields were associated with fewer adverse events compared to chemotherapy along with similar incidence of skin irritation.
conclusionsTTFields are a safe and efficient novel treatment modality. More randomized controlled studies, with longer follow-up, are necessary to further assess the clinical outcomes of TTFields.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29696502What 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.