Trial reportBMC cancer2026
Gemcitabine as maintenance treatment of diffuse pleural mesothelioma: randomized phase II study.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07411144 (Gemcitabine as Maintenance Treatment of Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma), which is not on this 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.
Gemcitabine as Maintenance Treatment of Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma: Randomized Phase II Study
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiffuse Pleural Mesothelioma (DPM) is an aggressive cancer with limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. Maintenance therapy has emerged as a potential strategy to delay disease progression following first-line chemotherapy. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine maintenance therapy compared to best supportive care (BSC) in patients with unresectable DPM.
methodsThis single-center, randomized, phase II, open-label trial included 64 patients with unresectable DPM who achieved a complete/partial response or stable disease after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. They were randomized 1:1 to receive gemcitabine maintenance therapy (GEM group, n = 32) or BSC (BSC group, n = 32). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, while overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints.
resultsGemcitabine maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS (median: 6.2 months vs. 2.8 months; HR: 4.33, 95% CI: 2.48–7.56, p < 0.001). However, no significant difference in OS was observed between the GEM and BSC groups (p = 0.155). Performance status (PS) at randomization and histological type were significant prognostic factors for survival. The GEM group experienced higher rates of hematological toxicities, while the BSC group reported more dyspnea, fatigue, and chest pain. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed.
conclusionGemcitabine maintenance therapy effectively delays disease progression in patients with unresectable DPM, with a manageable toxicity profile. However, its impact on OS is limited. Performance status and histological type remain critical factors in predicting treatment outcomes.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT07411144, Date 1322026).
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.