Trial reportCancer medicine2023
Randomized controlled trial on the effect of 1-hour infusion of vincristine versus push injection on neuropathy in children with cancer (final analysis).
Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVincristine is an integral component of treatment for children with cancer. Its main dose-limiting side effect is vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy (VIPN). The VINCA trial was a randomized controlled trial that explored the effect of 1-hour infusion compared with push injection of vincristine on the development of VIPN in children with cancer. The short-term outcomes (median follow-up 9 months) showed that there was no difference in VIPN between the randomization groups. However, 1-hour infusion was less toxic in children who also received azoles. We now report the results of the final analyses (median follow-up 20 months), which includes treatment outcome as a secondary objective (follow-up 3 years).
methodsVIPN was measured 1-7 times per participant using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and the pediatric-modified total neuropathy score. Poisson mixed model and logistic generalized estimating equation analysis for repeated measures were performed.
resultsForty-five participants per randomization group were included. There was no significant effect of 1-hour infusion compared with push injection on VIPN. In participants receiving concurrent azoles, the total CTCAE score was significantly lower in the one-hour group (rate ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.80, p = 0.003). Four patients in the one-hour group and one patient in the push group relapsed. Two patients in the one-hour group died.
conclusion1-hour infusion of vincristine is not protective against VIPN. However, in patients receiving concurrent azoles, 1-hour infusion may be less toxic. The difference in treatment outcome is most likely the result of differences in risk profile.
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.