ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
High-dose methotrexate-based regimens with or without vincristine for the treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phase II Trial of an Orelabrutinib-Based Combination Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma.Blood and lymphatic cancer : targets and therapy · 2025Trial
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare malignancy with few treatment options. One regimen used for induction is rituximab, high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), procarbazine, and vincristine (R-MPV). A common institutional practice is removing vincristine (VCR) from this regimen due to its poor CNS penetration and associated toxicities. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the omission of VCR from HD-MTX-based induction impacted clinical outcomes.
methodsIn a retrospective review, patients with PCNSL who received HD-MTX-based induction therapy between January 1, 2010 and May 31, 2018 were evaluated. Patients were stratified according to treatment into 2 groups, VCR-containing therapy versus no VCR. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate following the completion of induction chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse event rate.
resultsTwenty-nine patients were included: 16 patients in the VCR group and 13 in the non-VCR group. A CR was achieved in 7 (44%) and 5 (38%) (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-5.53) patients, respectively. Median OS was 85.3 (95% CI: 20.2-85.3) versus 67.1 months (95% CI: 10.5-NR) and median PFS was 60.7 (95% CI: 9.4-NR) versus 23.7 months (95% CI: 4.7-NR) in the VCR group versus non-VCR group, respectively. The incidence of any grade peripheral neuropathy was higher in the VCR group.
conclusionsCR rate, OS, and PFS were similar between groups regardless of VCR inclusion. Adverse events were higher in the VCR group. Larger studies are required to further evaluate the efficacy of VCR in PCNSL induction regimens.
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.