ArticleCancers2024
Local Delivery of Irinotecan to Recurrent GBM Patients at Reoperation Offers a Safe Route of Administration.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Local Nanomedicine and Nano-Enabled Biomaterials After Glioblastoma Resection.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Localized treatment of glioblastoma: a review of clinical strategies and advances in drug delivery systems.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Targeting the glioblastoma resection margin with locoregional nanotechnologies.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Engineering neuroimmune regulation: biomaterial and nanotechnology platforms for neuropathology diagnosis and targeted immunomodulation.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Targeting replication stress in glioblastoma: From genotoxic treatment and inhibitors of the DNA damage response to immunotherapy.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glioblastomas are impossible to completely resect and almost always recur at the borders of the resection margin. There is no established chemotherapy regimen available to patients who recur, while systemic treatment is hampered by the blood-brain barrier. Here, we report on the first evaluation in humans of the intraparenchymal injection of irinotecan into the resection cavity after surgical resection of recurrent glioblastoma patients. The cytotoxicity of irinotecan was compared to SN-38 in primary cells from recurrent glioblastoma patients. Irinotecan was injected at multiple (~30) sites of the resection cavity wall at a depth of 3 to 5 mm. SN-38 was more cytotoxic than irinotecan at concentrations below 1 µM due to enzyme kinetics. The intraparenchymal administration of irinotecan was safe, with good wound healing and an absence of swelling, inflammation, or pseudo-abscess formation. The median survival post irinotecan administration was 32.6 weeks. The median overall survival was 30.5 months, with a two-year survival rate of 56%. This study demonstrates that local delivery of irinotecan into the brain parenchyma offers a safe route of administration over systemic delivery in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma.
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.