ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Antiangiogenic exclusion rules in glioma trials: Historical perspectives and guidance for future trial design.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salvage therapies for recurrent grade 4 IDH-wildtype glioma: a BRAIN Registry analysis of real-world treatment patterns.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Calibrated and explainable multiparametric MRI radiomics for differentiating tumor positive disease from treatment-related changes in glioblastoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Understanding Neovascularization in Glioblastoma: Insights from the Current Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Leptomeningeal Disease: Current Approaches and Future Directions.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Review of Novel Surgical, Radiation, and Systemic Therapies and Clinical Trials in Glioblastoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the lack of proven therapies for recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG), only 8%-11% of patients with glioblastoma participate in clinical trials, partly due to stringent eligibility criteria. Prior bevacizumab treatment is a frequent exclusion criterion, due to difficulty with response assessment and concerns for rebound edema following antiangiogenic discontinuation. There are no standardized trial eligibility rules related to prior antiangiogenic use. Methods: We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov listings for glioma studies starting between May 2009 and July 2022 for eligibility rules related to antiangiogenics. We also reviewed the literature pertaining to bevacizumab withdrawal. Results: Two hundred and ninety-seven studies for patients with recurrent glioma were reviewed. Most were phase 1 ( Conclusions: Interventional clinical trials for patients with HGG have substantial heterogeneity regarding eligibility criteria pertaining to bevacizumab use, demonstrating a need for standardizing clinical trial design.
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.