Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2021
A multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group Phase 2b study of belotecan versus topotecan for recurrent ovarian cancer.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01630018 (A Phase Ⅱb, Randomized, Open, Parallel-Group, Multi-Center Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Belotecan), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
A Phase Ⅱb, Randomized, Open, Parallel-Group, Multi-Center Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Belotecan(CamtoBell Inj.) or Topotecan in Patients With Recurrent or Refractory Ovarian Cancer
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping CSC-Mediated Ovarian Cancer Chemoresistance via CXCR4-PET to Guide Precision Cisplatin Re-Sensitization Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Second-Line Chemotherapies for First-Relapsed High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Pharmacokinetics, toxicities, and tissue concentrations of belotecan sprayed by rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy in a pig model.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Recent Trends in the Petasis Reaction: A Review of Novel Catalytic Synthetic Approaches with Applications of the Petasis Reaction.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Discovery and development of botanical natural products and their analogues as therapeutics for ovarian cancer.Natural product reports · 2023Review
- Molecular Engineering of Peptide-Drug Conjugates for Therapeutics.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis Phase 2b study compared the efficacy and toxicity of belotecan and topotecan in recurrent ovarian cancer.
methodsPatients with platinum-sensitive recurrent or platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRROC) were randomised 1:1 to receive belotecan 0.5 mg/m
resultsA total of 140 (belotecan, n = 71; topotecan, n = 69) and 130 patients (belotecan, n = 66; topotecan, n = 64) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. ORR did not differ significantly between the belotecan and topotecan groups (ITT, 29.6% versus 26.1%; PP, 30.3% versus 25%). Although PFS did not differ between the groups, belotecan was associated with improved OS compared with topotecan in the PP population (39.7 versus 26.6 months; P = 0.034). In particular, belotecan showed longer OS in PRROC and non-high-grade serous carcinoma (non-HGSC; PP, adjusted hazard ratios, 0.499 and 0.187; 95% confidence intervals 0.255-0.977 and 0.039-0.895). Furthermore, there were no differences in toxicities between the two groups.
conclusionsBelotecan was not inferior to topotecan in terms of overall response for recurrent ovarian cancer. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT01630018.
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.