ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Are conventional and hypofractionated chemoradiotherapy comparable in glioblastoma patients?
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesHypofractionated radiation therapy (Hypo-RT) schedules may offer radiobiological, patient convenience, and healthcare resource advantages over standard fractionated radiation therapy (S-RT) for glioblastoma (GBM). Additionally, simulated integrated boost (SIB) Hypo-RT is proven to be an effective and safe treatment. We report on our experience regarding progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and RT-related toxicities in GBM patients treated with Hypo-RT and S-RT.
methodsPatients with IDH-wild-type GBM received either Hypo-RT (40.05-52.5 Gy/15 fractions) or S-RT (60-70 Gy/30 fractions). Volumetric modulated arc therapy was performed for all patients. Concomitant temozolomide (75 mg/m
resultsNinety-five patients were treated (Hypo-RT: 52, S-RT: 43). With a median follow-up of 25 months (range 9-63), the median age was 65 and 54 years for the Hypo-RT and S-RT groups, respectively. All patients tolerated the treatment well; no significant adverse effects were observed in either group. No acute or late neurological side effects of grade ≥ 2 were reported during RT. Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in five cases, all of which interrupted concomitant TMZ (all happening in the S-RT arm). The time to progression for the S-RT and Hypo-RT groups was 13.7 and 11.1 months, respectively (p = 0.243). Regarding OS, the S-RT group had a median OS of 28.8 months compared to 17.5 months in the Hypo-RT group (p = 0.007).
conclusionsAlthough further investigations are ongoing, a statistically significant difference exists between Hypo-RT and S-RT in OS. Hypo-RT could potentially become the standard of care not only for elderly patients but also for those with poor prognosis. Further investigation with additional data is necessary to determine the most effective standard approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41176740What 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.