Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30790063›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2019

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Is Tailoring the Second-Line Therapy Really "Raising the Bar?"

Vincenzo Di Noia, Emanuele Vita, Miriam Ferrara, Antonia Strippoli, Michele Basso, Giovanni Schinzari, Alessandra Cassano, Emilio Bria, Carlo Barone, Ettore D'Argento

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The two sides of chromosomal instability: drivers and brakes in cancer.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vincenzo Di NoiaUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. vincenzopio.dinoia01@icatt.it.
Emanuele VitaUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Miriam FerraraUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Antonia StrippoliUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Michele BassoUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni SchinzariUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Alessandra CassanoUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Emilio BriaUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Carlo BaroneUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Ettore D'ArgentoUOC di Oncologia Medica - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementUnresectable or relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has dismal prognosis. First-line combination therapy with pemetrexed and a platinum analog allows a modest survival benefit, while no clear therapeutic options exist for the second-line therapy. In this setting, pemetrexed seems to be the most active drug; however, the inclusion in front-line treatment limits its use in further lines. Nevertheless, rechallenge with one or both drugs used in first-line remains a feasible strategy for responder patients. Alternatively, only few cytotoxic drugs have demonstrated a mild activity in refractory MPM. Among other options, targeted therapy has unfortunately produced disappointing results as salvage treatment probably due to the lack of a clear understanding of the tumor biology. In contrast, recent data suggest moderate efficacy and mild toxicity of immunotherapy also for the treatment of MPM. The combination of checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy or other immunological agents seems promising and could really "raise the bar" in this setting.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsImmunotherapyMolecular Targeted TherapyAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicCombined Modality TherapyHumansLung NeoplasmsMesotheliomaMesothelioma, MalignantPleural NeoplasmsPrognosisTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsImmunotherapyMalignant pleural mesotheliomaRelapsed diseaseSalvage therapySecond-line therapyTarget therapy

Identifiers

PMID30790063
OpenAlexW2916731140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.