ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Strategies for managing EMA/CO resistant in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia a systematic review and meta analysis.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Choriocarcinoma at an Abdominal Wall Cesarean Scar: Recurrence After Multi-Line Chemotherapy and Exploration of Salvage Therapy.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy and safety of salvage regimens in managing EMA/CO-resistant GTN, providing evidence to inform optimal treatment strategies.
methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Wiley Online Library until December 27, 2024. Studies on EMA/CO chemoresistance in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) were included, and alternative regimens and surgical interventions were also considered. Exclusion applied to non-human studies and those unrelated to EMA/CO chemoresistance. Data extraction and quality assessment followed PRISMA, Cochrane ROB-2, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity (I²) and publication bias assessed. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024574582).
resultsEight studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing patients predominantly with advanced-stage (FIGO III-IV) and high-risk GTN. EMA/EP and EP/EMA were the most frequently evaluated salvage regimens, with a pooled complete remission rate of 78.7% (95% CI: 67.4–88.1%) across 84 patients. No significant heterogeneity (I² = 27.05%) or publication bias was detected. Alternative regimens, including BEP, FAEV, and TP/TE, demonstrated favourable remission rates in small cohorts but lacked generalizability. Neutropenia (68%), thrombocytopenia (41%), and anaemia (30%) were the most commonly reported toxicities with EP/EMA. Safety data for other regimens were limited.
conclusionEMA/EP and EP/EMA remain the most effective and well-studied salvage regimens for EMA/CO-resistant GTN, demonstrating high remission rates with manageable toxicity. While alternative regimens such as BEP, FAEV, and TP/TE show encouraging results, their limited evidence base precludes definitive comparison. Further prospective studies are needed to establish optimal salvage strategies and refine toxicity management.
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.