Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41492105›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026

Bevacizumab combined with irinotecan or temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma: a Turkish Oncology Group (TOG) study.

Sinem Akbas, Ozkan Alan, Oguzhan Yildiz, Melek Karakurt, Eda Caliskan Yildirim, Rumeysa Colak, Mesut Yilmaz, Abdussamet Celebi, Ozlem Er, Ozde Melisa Celayir and 18 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. 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

28 authors.

Sinem AkbasDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye. sinem_kocak@yahoo.com.
Ozkan AlanDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University- Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Oguzhan YildizDepartment of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Melek KarakurtDepartment of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Eda Caliskan YildirimDepartment of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Türkiye.
Rumeysa ColakDepartment of Medical Oncology, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Mesut YilmazDepartment of Medical Oncology, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Abdussamet CelebiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Marmara University Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Ozlem ErDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Ozde Melisa CelayirDivision of Medical Oncology, Basaksehir Cam ve Sakura Sehir Hastanesi, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Mutianur Ozkorkmaz AkdagDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kocaeli University, Izmit, Türkiye.
Omer SacliDepartment of Medical Oncology, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Melike OzcelikDepartment of Medical Oncology, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Elif SahinDepartment of Medical Oncology, Kocaeli Sehir Hastanesi, Izmit, Türkiye.
Melek OzdemirDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Türkiye.
Gamze Gokoz DoguDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Türkiye.
Atakan DemirDepartment of Medical Oncology, Memorial Göztepe Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Murat GunaltiliDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University- Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Omer Faruk ElcicekDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Türkiye.
Teoman SakalarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necip Fazıl Sehir Hastanesi, Kahramanmaras, Türkiye.
Berkan KarabugaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye.
Fatih YildizDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye.
Eyyup CavdarDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Türkiye.
Oguzcan OzkanDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Türkiye.
Ahmet Emin OzturkDepartment of Medical Oncology, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu Sehir Hastanesi, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Baran AkagunduzDepartment of Medical Oncology, Bahrain Oncology Center, Manama, Bahrain.
Buket Bayram KuvvetDepartment of Internal Medicine, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Fatih SelcukbiricikDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGiven the lack of an effective systemic therapy for recurrent glioblastoma, this study aims to compare response rates, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity profiles of bevacizumab in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) versus irinotecan.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with recurrent glioblastoma from seventeen oncology centers in Türkiye who received bevacizumab combined with either TMZ or irinotecan after progression. Outcomes included response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events assessed by CTCAE v4.0.

resultsAmong 210 patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the median PFS was 7.9 months overall (5.2 months with TMZ–bevacizumab and 8.2 months with irinotecan–bevacizumab), and the median OS was 10.6 months overall (11.3 and 10.3 months, respectively). Six-month PFS and OS rates were 60% and 68% for the entire cohort, with no statistically significant differences between treatment regimens. Both combinations were generally well tolerated, with hypertension more frequent in the TMZ arm and liver enzyme elevation more common in the irinotecan arm.

conclusionIn this multicenter cohort of patients with recurrent glioblastoma, bevacizumab combined with either temozolomide or irinotecan demonstrated comparable PFS and OS outcomes. Both regimens were generally well tolerated, suggesting that treatment choice may be guided by individual patient profiles and toxicity considerations rather than differences in efficacy.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabBrain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIrinotecanMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTemozolomideTurkeyBevacizumabIrinotecanTemozolomideBevacizumabGlioblastomaIrinotecanTemozolomide

Identifiers

PMID41492105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.