Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35397674›Full record

SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2022

Efficacy and safety of tumor-treating fields in recurrent glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaohui Li, Zetian Jia, Yaqi Yan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Xiaohui Li *School of Life Science and Enginering, Handan University, Handan, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-7022-8970
Zetian Jia *Department of Neurosurgery, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050000, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-0624-5634
Yaqi YanDepartment of Cardiology, The First Hospital of Handan of Hebei Province, Handan, 056000, People's Republic of China. 514665435@qq.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3915-4966

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumor-treating fields (TTF) is a novel cancer treatment that uses alternating electric fields to interfere with tumor cell mitosis. It has been approved by the U.S. food and drug administration for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). We designed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTF in the treatment of rGBM.

methodsThe study was based on the PRISMA guideline. Systematic retrieval was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The outcomes were overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR), 1-year survival rate, and cutaneous toxicity.

resultsThese studies included a total of 1048 rGBM patients who received TTF treatment. The overall survival time between the TTF group and the control group was HR 0.75 ([95%CI 0.63 to 0.89]; P = 0.001). Pooled 1-year overall survival rate and incidence of cutaneous toxicity were 0.47 and 0.48, respectively. Data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of MGMT methylation status and tumor recurrence times on heterogeneity.

conclusionsTTF therapy is effective for recurrent glioblastoma. However, most relevant trials should assess rGBM patient baseline characteristics such as age, KPS, MGMT methylation status, and number of tumor recurrence,. In addition, the risk of rashes caused by long-term wearing of devices should also be considered.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalGBMGlioblastomaMeta-analysisTumor-treating fields (TTF)

Identifiers

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.