ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2021
Clinical Application of Tumor Vascular Disrupting Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- High-grade serous ovarian cancer induced in different sites of origin in mice exemplifies diverse features of the human disease.iScience · 2026Article
- Targeting the tumour vasculature: from vessel destruction to promotion.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe occurrence, progression, invasion and metastasis of tumors depend on a tumor vascular network. Vascular disrupting agents (VDAs) are a new class of drugs targeting the tumor vasculature, by blocking the existing tumor blood vessels. However, there is no clear consensus on the clinical efficacy of tumor vascular disrupting therapy. In this study, we performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials focused on tumor vascular disrupting therapies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify clinical trials that used VDAs to treat tumors. After literature screening and data extraction, according to inclusion and exclusion labels, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.
resultsIn this meta-analysis, we included 2659 patients from eight randomized controlled trials involving non-small-cell lung cancer, prostate, epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal carcinoma. Compared with the control arm, the experimental arm exhibited an effective improvement of 0.5-year and 1-year survival, as well as the 6-month progression-free survival rate. There was no significant difference between patients in the experimental compared to the control arm with respect to objective response and disease control rates, and 12-month progression-free survival.
conclusionVascular disrupting therapy can effectively prolong the survival of cancer patients. However, for indicators of short-term efficacy, such as objective response rate and disease control rate, there is still a lack of high-quality, large-scale clinical trial data to confirm the effectiveness of VDAs.
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.