ArticleCancer medicine2025
Doxorubicin Plus Dacarbazine Versus Doxorubicin Plus Ifosfamide in Combination With Regional Hyperthermia in Patients With Advanced Leiomyosarcoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Primary cardiac sarcoma: insights from two decades of multimodal management at LMU Munich.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDacarbazine is currently considered the better combination partner for doxorubicin compared to ifosfamide for the treatment of leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Regional hyperthermia (RHT) combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with locally advanced high-risk STS. We sought to evaluate the role of doxorubicin and dacarbazine (AD) versus doxorubicin and ifosfamide (AI) in combination with RHT in patients with LMS.
methodsPatients with locally advanced high-grade LMS, including limited metastases, eligible for RHT and first-line treatment with either AI + RHT or AD + RHT between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients were matched using propensity scores, which were estimated with a logistic regression model accounting for tumor site, presence of metastasis, surgery, and radiotherapy.
resultsA total of 105 patients were included in this study, of which 101 were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. In the matched cohort, treatment with AD + RHT was associated with a significantly improved PFS (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.74, p = 0.0081). Multivariable analysis revealed several significant predictors of PFS, including treatment with AD + RHT (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.92, p = 0.031).
conclusionTreatment with AD + RHT showed improved PFS and better treatment tolerability compared to AI + RHT. Our results support the use of AD instead of AI for the treatment of patients with LMS in combination with RHT.
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.