Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31289506›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2019

Management of recurrent or refractory Ewing sarcoma: A systematic review of phase II clinical trials in the last 15 years.

Jie Xu, Lu Xie, Xin Sun, Sen Dong, Xiaodong Tang, Wei Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Jie XuMusculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R. China.
Lu XieMusculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R. China.
Xin SunMusculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R. China.
Sen DongMusculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R. China.
Xiaodong TangMusculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R. China.
Wei GuoMusculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antitumor activity of drugs in phase II clinical trials for recurrent or refractory EWS. A systematic review was performed using clinical trials from four data sources: i) ClinicalTrials.gov; ii) PubMed; iii) Clinicaltrialsregister.eu; and iv) American Society of Clinical Oncology. The search terms included: '(Ewing sarcoma OR Ewing family of tumors) AND (phase II OR phase I/II)'. Overall, 465 trials were identified and 64 were included in the present study, of which, 37 had published results. The highest objective response rate came from irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Currently, the majority of targeted therapy has failed to demonstrate any activity except for regorafenib. Trials using anti-angiogenesis small molecular tyrosine kinase inhibitors (aaTKIs) are currently ongoing with promising early results. For immunotherapy, anti-insulin like growth factor 1 receptor antibody demonstrated disappointing activity. The best outcome came from irinotecan-based regimens. Targeted therapy with aaTKIs is worthy of further investigation, with immunotherapy is not recommended for off-label use.

Indexed as

Ewing sarcomaphase IIrecurrentrefractory

Identifiers

PMID31289506
PMCPMC6540207

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.