ArticleBMC cancer2024
Prolonged 14-day continuous infusion of high-dose ifosfamide for patients with relapsed and refractory high-grade osteosarcoma: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. 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.
- Osteosarcoma Across the Age Spectrum: Why Outcomes Diverge and Trials Must Adapt.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Real-World Experience of Efficacy and Tolerability of Continuous Infusion Ifosfamide for Advanced Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Patients: A Single Centre Retrospective Cohort.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term benefit from high-dose ifosfamide in sarcoma depends on sustained prior control and timely intervention: a machine learning analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Exploring Emerging Therapeutic Targets in Osteosarcoma by Revisiting the Immune and Cancer-Intrinsic Hallmarks of Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Systemic strategies for osteosarcoma: advances and future directions.Discover oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis of patients with Relapsed/Refractory Osteosarcoma (R/R OS) remains dismal without an agreement on systemic therapy. The use of High-Dose Ifosfamide (14 g/sqm) with an external pump in outpatient setting (14-IFO) in R/R OS patients is limited. This study represents the first retrospective cohort analysis focused on evaluating the activity and toxicity of 14-IFO in this setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study investigated 14-IFO activity, in terms of tumour response according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, as well as survival rates and toxicity, according to CTCAE v.5.
resultsThe trial enrolled 26 patients with R/R OS. The Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) obtained was 23% and 57.5%, respectively. Patients with relapsed OS showed a higher ORR (45%) and DCR (82%) compared to refractory patients, irrespective of the number of prior treatment lines received. The achievement of disease control with 14-IFO administration enabled 27% of patients to undergo new local treatment. Four-month Progression-Free Survival (PFS) was 54% for all patients and 82% for the relapsed OS sub-group. Median Overall Survival (OSurv) was 13.7 months, with 1-year OSurv of 51% for all patients and 71% for relapsed patients. Age over 18 years and the presence of refractory disease were identified as negative prognostic factors for this patient cohort. A total of 101 cycles were evaluated for toxic assessment, demonstrating a tolerable profile without grade 3-4 non-haematological toxicities.
conclusions14-IFO should be considered a viable treatment option for R/R OS, particularly due to its well tolerated toxicity profile and the potential for home-administration, which can improve patient quality of life without compromising efficacy.
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.