SynthesisThe oncologist2025
Identifying the best treatment choice for relapsing/refractory glioblastoma: a systematic review with multiple Bayesian network meta-analyses.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of therapeutic strategies for recurrent or refractory glioblastoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Post-recurrence management of malignant glial brain tumors: therapeutic strategies, evidence and limitations, palliative care, terminal sedation, and end-of-life considerations.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Preliminary exploration of PSMA CAR-T combined with GD2 CAR-T for the treatment of refractory/relapsed gliomas.Journal of translational medicine · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlioblastoma is a highly aggressive primary central nervous system tumor characterized by poor outcomes. In case of relapse or progression to adjuvant chemotherapy, there is no univocal preferred regimen for relapsing glioblastoma.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and Bayesian trial-level network meta-analyses (NMA) to identify the regimens associated with the best outcomes. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rates (ORR). We estimated separate treatment rankings based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Only phase II/III prospective comparative trials were included.
resultsTwenty-four studies (3733 patients and 27 different therapies) were ultimately included. Twenty-three different regimens were compared for OS, 21 for PFS, and 26 for ORR. When taking lomustine as a common comparator, only regorafenib was likely to be significantly superior in terms of OS (hazard ratio: 0.50, 95% credible interval: 0.33-0.75). Regorafenib was significantly superior to other 16 (69.6%) regimens, including NovoTTF-100A, bevacizumab monotherapy, and several bevacizumab-based combinations. Regarding PFS and ORR, no treatment was clearly superior to the others.
conclusionsThis NMA supports regorafenib as one of the best available options for relapsing/refractory glioblastoma. Lomustine, NovoTTF-100A, and bevacizumab emerge as other viable alternative regimens. However, evidence on regorafenib is controversial at best. Moreover, most studies were underpowered, with varying inclusion criteria and primary endpoints, and no longer adapted to the most recent glioblastoma classification. A paradigmatic change in clinical trials' design for relapsing/refractory glioblastoma and more effective treatments are urgently required.
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.