Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32945958›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Combination therapy with percutaneous osteoplasty and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases: preliminary report.

Lu Zhang, Benyun Wang, Pijian Cao, Qinglin Zhang, Xunwei Liu, Min Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lu ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Peony People's Hospital of Heze City (The Central Hospital of Heze City), No. 2111, Kangzhuang Road, Heze, 274000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Benyun WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Peony People's Hospital of Heze City (The Central Hospital of Heze City), No. 2111, Kangzhuang Road, Heze, 274000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Pijian CaoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Peony People's Hospital of Heze City (The Central Hospital of Heze City), No. 2111, Kangzhuang Road, Heze, 274000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Qinglin ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Peony People's Hospital of Heze City (The Central Hospital of Heze City), No. 2111, Kangzhuang Road, Heze, 274000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Xunwei LiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, 960 Hospital of PLA (The General Hospital of Jinan Command), No. 25, Shifan Road, Jinan, 250031, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Min LiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, 960 Hospital of PLA (The General Hospital of Jinan Command), No. 25, Shifan Road, Jinan, 250031, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. liminyingxiang@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7649-3900
Heze Municipal Hospital · CNGeneral Hospital of Jinan Military Command · CN

Funding

Science and Technology Plan of Jinan Municipal Health Commission 2017-1-31The National Natural Science Foundation of China 81671799
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the clinical efficacies of percutaneous osteoplasty (POP) and combination therapy with percutaneous osteoplasty and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (POPTACE) for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases.

methodsA retrospective study of 100 patients with pelvic bone metastases who had been treated by POP (n = 50) and POPTACE (n = 50) was conducted in this work. The clinical efficacies of these two treatments were evaluated by comparing their pain and functional abilities and bone metastases ability at the pre- and post-operative time points.

resultsPOPTACE and POP treatments had no significant differences (P > 0.05) in VAS scores and KPS scores. Concerning tumor response, a partial response in 37 of 50 (74%) patients at 1 month for the POPTACE group and a partial response in 26 of 50 (52%) patients at 1 month for the POPC group were observed (P = 0.04). Although POPTACE and POP treatments had significant and similar ability in pain relief and functional recovery ability for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases, POPTACE treatment had a significantly better tumor response ability (partial response and stable response) compared with POP treatment.

conclusionBoth POP and POPTACE were effective methods for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases. Moreover, these initial outcomes suggest POPTACE treatment may be better than POP treatment. POPTACE treatment has great value and is worth promoting vigorously in orthopedics clinics.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsCementoplastyChemoembolization, TherapeuticFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCombination therapyEfficacyPelvic bone metastasesPercutaneous osteoplastyTranscatheter arterial chemoembolization

Identifiers

PMID32945958
OpenAlexW3087396356

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.