SynthesisPloS one2019
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compare standard doxorubicin with other first-line chemotherapies for advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Phase Ib/II Randomized Study of RO4929097, a Gamma-Secretase or Notch Inhibitor with or without Vismodegib, a Hedgehog Inhibitor, in Advanced Sarcoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Trial
- How I treat soft tissue sarcomas.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Transoral Videolaryngoscopic Surgery for an Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma of the Tongue Base: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Insight Into Primary Intimal Sarcoma of the Pulmonary Artery; From Diagnosis to Management: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Review
- A case of dedifferentiated liposarcoma of the descending colon.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- A Novel Four-Gene Prognostic Signature for Prediction of Survival in Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma.Cancers · 2021Article
- Successful treatment of advanced pancreatic leiomyosarcoma treated with gemcitabine plusInternational cancer conference journal · 2021Article
- Doxorubicin/Adriamycin Monotherapy or Plus Ifosfamide in First-Line Treatment for Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Protection against Doxorubicin-Induced Cardiac Dysfunction Is Not Maintained Following Prolonged Autophagy Inhibition.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Efficacy of combination-chemotherapy with pirarubicin, ifosfamide, and etoposide for soft tissue sarcoma: a single-institution retrospective analysis.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Mesenteric Myxofibrosarcoma: A Case Report.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe standard treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (ASTS) is systemic chemotherapy with doxorubicin. A previous meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated the superiority of single-agent doxorubicin over doxorubicin-based combination chemotherapy for ASTS. However, meta-analyses of all RCTs that compare doxorubicin to other single-agent or combination regimens as first-line treatments for ASTS are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of current primary treatments for ASTS.
methodsEligible studies were RCTs of first-line chemotherapies for ASTS comparing doxorubicin alone to other single agents or to combination therapies (experimental arm). Data from studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled. Other time-to-event endpoints were extracted from the studies based on Kaplan-Meier estimates, and pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI were calculated.
resultsTwenty-seven eligible RCTs comprising 6156 patients were identified. Overall, the 1-year OS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99, P = 0.03) was significantly improved in the experimental arm over the doxorubicin-only arm; however, there was no significant difference in 2-year OS (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73-1.03, P = 0.11) or OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.03, P = 0.28) between the two groups. PFS and other time-to-event endpoints were not significantly different between the two treatment arms. While incidences of overall severe adverse events were not significantly different (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88-1.65, P = 0.26), severe nausea/vomiting was significantly more frequent in the experimental arm (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.27-2.83, P = 0.002).
conclusionThe efficacies of doxorubicin-only and experimental arm regimens were similar, although toxicities were more frequent in the experimental arms. Hence, doxorubicin monotherapy remains suitable as a standard first-line regimen for ASTS.
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.