SynthesisPloS one2021
Hypofractionated radiotherapy for newly diagnosed elderly glioblastoma patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hypofractionated vs. conventional fractionated radiotherapy in the temozolomide era for elderly patients with glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis by the Korean society for neuro-oncology.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Survival after hypofractionated radiation versus standard radiation in glioblastoma by MGMT promoter methylation status and age: an analysis of the national cancer database.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Radiotherapy in Glioblastoma Multiforme: Evolution, Limitations, and Molecularly Guided Future.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of hypofractionated short-course versus standard radiation therapy in elderly patients with glioblastoma: analysis of nationwide database.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Hypofractionated radiotherapy for glioblastoma: A large institutional retrospective assessment of 2 approaches.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Optimal managements of elderly patients with glioblastoma.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Optimizing management of the elderly patient with glioblastoma: Survival prediction online tool based on BC Cancer Registry real-world data.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate different hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for newly diagnosed elderly glioblastoma (GBM) patients.
methodsWe performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), including searches on CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, clinical trial databases and manual search. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Primary outcomes: overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes: progression-free-survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) table for assessing individual studies and CINeMA for evaluating the certainty of the final body of evidence.
resultsFour RCTs (499 patients) were included. For OS, the estimates from NMA did not provide strong evidence of a difference between the HRTs: 40 Gray (Gy) versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.89; CI 95%: 0.42, 1.91); 34 Gy versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.85; CI 95% 0.43, 1.70); 25 Gy versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.81; CI 95% 0.32, 2.02); 34 Gy versus 40 Gy (HR: 0.95; CI 95% 0.57, 1.61); and 25 Gy versus 34 Gy (HR: 0.95; CI 95% 0.46, 1.97). We performed qualitative synthesis for AE and QoL due to data scarcity and clinical heterogeneity among studies. The four studies reported a similar QoL (assessed by different methods) between arms. One RCT reported grade ≥ 3 AE, with no evidence of a difference between arms. PFS was reported in one study (25 Gy versus 40 Gy), with no evidence of a difference between arms.
conclusionThis review found no evidence of a difference between the evaluated HRTs for efficacy and safety.
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.