Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30988632›Full record

ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2019

Management of recurrent Ewing sarcoma: challenges and approaches.

David Van Mater, Lars Wagner

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Targeted and molecular therapies in Ewing sarcoma: a comprehensive review of preclinical and clinical advances.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David Van MaterDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, lars.wagner@duke.edu.
Lars WagnerDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, lars.wagner@duke.edu.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although many patients with newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma can become long-term survivors, relapse remains an important clinical problem for which there is no standard approach. Several prognostic factors have been identified, and these may help guide patient counseling and therapy decisions. A variety of chemotherapy regimens have produced responses in patients with recurrent Ewing sarcoma, but no comparative studies have been completed to show superiority of any one particular approach. In addition, the optimum length of therapy for salvage regimens and use of local control measures remains unknown. The likelihood of cure remains low and the gaps in our knowledge are great, and so enrollment on clinical trials should be strongly encouraged for these patients when feasible. Because Ewing sarcoma is relatively rare, some pediatric and adult oncologists may be less familiar with the management of relapsed patients. In this review, we address common questions facing the clinician and patient, and provide an update on new strategies for therapy.

Indexed as

adolescent and young adult oncologyAYAirinotecanrelapsed Ewing sarcomatopotecan

Identifiers

PMID30988632
PMCPMC6441548
OpenAlexW2925106048

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.