Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41379280›Full record

SynthesisMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2025

Efficacy of ketogenic metabolic therapy as an adjuvant to the current standard of care in the treatment of glioblastoma: A systematic review of clinical trials.

Emily McKerill, Joecelyn Kirani Tan, Chethana Krishna Rao, Christian A Linares, Soirindhri Banerjee, Rukhshana Dina Rabbani, Sola Adeleke, Aruni Ghose, Stergios Boussios

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Emily McKerill *School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Joecelyn Kirani Tan *School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Chethana Krishna RaoBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Christian A LinaresDepartment of Oncology, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Barking, London, UK.
Soirindhri BanerjeeCancer Centre at Guy's, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rukhshana Dina RabbaniDepartment of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sola AdelekeDepartment of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Aruni GhoseBarts Cancer Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Stergios BoussiosDepartment of Research and Innovation, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, Gillingham, UK. stergiosboussios@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma is a diffuse, heterogenous tumour with a poor prognosis as current therapeutic options have limited efficacy. As a result, research aims to explore new treatment options which exploit the hallmarks of cancer. This review aimed to understand the breadth of research considering ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT) as an adjuvant to standard therapy. KMT aims to improve overall survival by exploiting the metabolic reprogramming exclusive to neoplastic cells. Preclinical trials show benefits in KMT when used alongside radiotherapy, through increasing anti-tumour effects compared to controls. Literature searches conducted over three databases, in line with PRISMA guidelines, collated studies relevant to KMT and glioblastoma. Six prospective studies and one retrospective study met the inclusion criteria for this review. Data regarding participants, interventions and survival were extracted. Studies included used small numbers of participants, as many aimed to assess the feasibility of larger-scale trials, which increases errors and bias of results. Furthermore, direct comparison between trials was limited due to study heterogeneity, as each trial used differing parameters and diet compositions. As a result, no definitive conclusions could be made. Future studies should use larger cohorts with standardised parameters so results are representative, and comparisons can be made to evaluate efficacy.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDiet, KetogenicGlioblastomaClinical Trials as TopicHumansStandard of CareAdjuvantBrain tumourEfficacyGlioblastomaKetogenic metabolic therapy

Identifiers

PMID41379280
PMCPMC12698784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.