ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2025
Comparison of the Efficacy of First-Line Pemetrexed-Platinum and Gemcitabine-Platinum Regimens in Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is a rare and progressive cancer originating from the mesothelial cells of the peritoneum. In patients with early-stage disease who are suitable for surgery, the treatment of choice is CRS + HIPEC, whereas in advanced-stage patients, systemic treatments are applied. Pemetrexed plus platinum regimens are at the forefront of first-line systemic treatments. Gemcitabine plus platinum regimens are rarely used as first-line treatment for MPeM. The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy of first-line pemetrexed plus platinum with gemcitabine plus platinum regimens in patients with MPeM. Methods: In this study, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 48 patients with MPeM who were followed up in our clinic between 2001 and 2025. In our study, 28 patients received pemetrexed plus platinum as a first-line regimen, while 20 patients received gemcitabine plus platinum. The median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS), and response rates for both regimens were analyzed. In addition, prognostic factors influencing overall survival were investigated in the entire patient population. Results: The median PFS and OS were 11.1 months and 17.0 months for pemetrexed and 8.01 months and 14.4 months for gemcitabine. Although pemetrexed showed numerically higher PFS and OS, the difference was not statistically significant. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 32.1% and 57.1% for pemetrexed, compared with 25% and 40% for gemcitabine, showing pemetrexed's superiority in response rates. In the entire patient population, CRS + HIPEC was the main prognostic factor for survival. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that the pemetrexed + platinum regimen has better response rates compared with the gemcitabine + platinum regimen in MPeM patients. However, gemcitabine-based regimens can be used as an alternative to pemetrexed in patients with MPeM.
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.