ArticleCancer management and research2024
Dose and Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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.
- Obstacles and Trials in Treating Primary Brain Tumors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Predictive role of MGMT and IDH status in the efficacy of bevacizumab for high-grade glioma: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Correlation between MGMT methylation and the efficacy of bevacizumab in high-grade glioma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We retrospectively analyzed the effect of Bevacizumab (BEV) on recurrent high-grade glioma (rHGG) and examined the relationship between dose and efficacy. Methods: A total of 182 patients with rHGG were included in this study. Patients were divided into a non-BEV group and a BEV group according to the treatment they received, and the BEV group was further divided into a low-dose group and a high-dose group based on the dose. Depending on the number of groups and the characteristics of numerical variables, Results: Progression-free survival (PFS) was lower in the non-BEV group compared to the BEV group, while overall survival (OS) was not different between the two groups. There was no difference in PFS and OS between low-dose group and high-dose group. Notably, we found that patients with longer PFS and OS were more likely to be from the BEV group. In addition, differences in Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), steroid dose, and brain edema were observed in the non-BEV, low-dose, and high-dose groups from 3 to 12 months after treatment. Conclusion: BEV can improve PFS in patients with rHGG, although its impact on OS is limited. There was no difference in the efficacy of different doses of BEV on rHGG. Interestingly, patients with longer PFS and OS were more likely to be from the BEV group. Based on these findings, long-term low-dose BEV appears to be an effective treatment option for rHGG.
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.