Trial reportJournal of neuro-oncology2024
A combined analysis of two prospective randomised studies exploring the impact of extended post-radiation temozolomide on survival outcomes in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
Trial report in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Prolonged Adjuvant Temozolomide Treatment in Glioblastoma: Prospective Study of 81 Patients Undergoing up to 101 Cycles of Treatment.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Predictive role of MGMT and IDH status in the efficacy of bevacizumab for high-grade glioma: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Correlation between MGMT methylation and the efficacy of bevacizumab in high-grade glioma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe optimal duration of post-radiation temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma remains unclear, with no published phase III randomised trials. Standard-of-care stipulates 6 months. However, in routine care, it is often extended to 12 months, despite lacking robust supporting data.
methodsGEINO14-01 (Spain) and EX-TEM (Australia) studies enrolled glioblastoma patients without progression at the end of 6 months post-radiation temozolomide. Participants were randomised 1:1 to six additional months of temozolomide or observation. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression free survival from date of randomisation (6mPFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and toxicity. 204 patients were required to detect an improvement in 6mPFS from 50 to 60% (80% power). Neither study recruited sufficient patients. We performed a combined analysis of individual patient data.
results205 patients were recruited: 159 in GEINO14-01 (2014-2018) and 46 in EX-TEM (2019-2022). Median follow-up was 20.0 and 14.5 months. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was no significant improvement in 6mPFS (57.2% vs 64.0%, OR0.75, p = 0.4), nor across any subgroups, including MGMT methylated; PFS (HR0.92, p = 0.59, median 7.8 vs 9.7 months); or OS (HR1.03, p = 0.87, median 20.1 vs 19.4 months). During treatment extension, 64% experienced any grade adverse event, mainly fatigue and gastrointestinal (both 54%). Only a minority required treatment changes: 4.5% dose delay, 7.5% dose reduction, 1.5% temozolomide discontinuation.
conclusionFor glioblastoma patients, extending post-radiation temozolomide from 6 to 12 months is well tolerated but does not improve 6mPFS. We could not identify any subset that benefitted from extended treatment. Six months should remain standard-of-care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38153582What 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.