ArticleScientific reports2024
Simultaneous boost radiotherapy versus conventional dose radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a multi-institutional analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does pattern of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) residual intra-operatively predict worse outcome in glioblastoma?Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Real-world survival and prognostic factors in WHO 2021 classified gliomas treated with chemo-radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Tumor recurrence patterns in eloquent glioma after microsurgical resection and adjuvant radiochemotherapy.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
22 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We compared survival outcomes of high-dose concomitant boost radiotherapy (HDCBRT) and conventional dose radiotherapy (CRT) for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GB). Patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for newly diagnosed GB were included. In HDCBRT, specific targets received 69, 60, and 51 Gy in 30 fractions, while 60 Gy in 30 fractions was administered with a standard radiotherapy method in CRT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using the Log-rank test, followed by multivariate Cox analysis. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was also applied to each analysis. Among 102 eligible patients, 45 received HDCBRT and 57 received CRT. With a median follow-up of 16 months, the median survival times of OS and PFS were 21 and 9 months, respectively. No significant differences were observed in OS or PFS in the Kaplan-Meier analyses. In the multivariate analysis, HDCBRT correlated with improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.90; P = 0.021), and this result remained consistent after IPTW adjustments (P = 0.028). Conversely, dose suppression due to the proximity of normal tissues and IMRT field correlated with worse OS and PFS (P = 0.008 and 0.049, respectively). A prospective study with a stricter protocol is warranted to validate the efficacy of HDCBRT for GB.
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.