ArticleMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2024
The role of molecular biomarkers in recurrent glioblastoma trials: an assessment of the current trial landscape of genome-driven oncology.
Article in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The role of molecular biomarkers in recurrent glioblastoma trials: an assessment of the current trial landscape of genome-driven oncology.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Article
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
For glioblastoma patients, the efficacy-targeted therapy is limited to date. Most of the molecular therapies previously studied are lacking efficacy in this population. More trials are needed to study the actual actionability of biomarkers in (recurrent) glioblastoma. This study aimed to assess the current clinical trial landscape to assess the role of molecular biomarkers in trials on recurrent glioblastoma treatment. The database ClinicalTrials.gov was used to identify not yet completed clinical trials on recurrent glioblastoma in adults. Recruiting studies were assessed to investigate the role of molecular criteria, which were retrieved as detailed as possible. Primary outcome was molecular criteria used as selection criteria for study participation. Next to this, details on moment and method of testing, and targets and drugs studied, were collected. In 76% (181/237) of the included studies, molecular criteria were not included in the study design. Of the remaining 56 studies, at least one specific genomic alteration as selection criterium for study participation was required in 33 (59%) studies. Alterations in EGFR, CDKN2A/B or C, CDK4/6, and RB were most frequently investigated, as were the corresponding drugs abemaciclib and ribociclib. Of the immunotherapies, CAR-T therapies were the most frequently studied therapies. Previously, genomics studies have revealed the presence of potentially actionable alterations in glioblastoma. Our study shows that the potential efficacy of targeted treatment is currently not translated into genome-driven trials in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. An intensification of genome-driven trials might help in providing evidence for (in)efficacy of targeted treatments.
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.