SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for glioblastoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGlioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor with a poor prognosis. The current standard regimen of surgery combined with concurrent temozolomide chemoradiotherapy has limited efficacy. Multiple targeted therapies have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but results are inconsistent and lack systematic comparisons. This review used network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy and safety of different targeted drugs vs. standard treatment.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to March 7, 2025. RCTs comparing targeted drugs (monotherapy or combination therapy) with standard treatment (surgical resection ± radiotherapy ± temozolomide) or comparing different targeted drugs were included. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs). Bayesian NMA estimates hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), and their 95% credible intervals (CrI). Surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) ranked interventions. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted based on the methylation status (methylated/unmethylated) of the O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter.
resultsIn total, 14 RCTs (10 targeted interventions) were included. Compared with standard therapy, bevacizumab (HR for PFS = 0.57, 95% CrI 0.41-0.80) prolonged PFS but did not significantly improve OS. Compared with other targeted therapies, it still improved PFS. Some drugs (e.g., nivolumab) may even shorten survival. Regarding safety, marizomib, nivolumab, depatuxizumab mafodotin, cediranib, and nimotuzumab were associated with a high risk of AEs. In the subgroup analysis of MGMT methylation, no remarkable differences were noticed. In exploratory MGMT-stratified analysis, nivolumab was associated with less favorable OS and PFS estimates in the unmethylated subgroup.
conclusionBevacizumab was associated with improved PFS, but not OS compared to standard therapy and other targeted therapies in newly diagnosed GBM patients. Exploratory subgroup findings suggested that nivolumab may be associated with less favorable OS and PFS estimates in MGMT-unmethylated patients. SUCRA rankings should be interpreted as exploratory because most interventions were supported by limited trial evidence. However, certain targeted drugs exhibit inadequate safety profiles, and careful risk-benefit assessment is required. Future research should further explore safer and more effective multi-targeted combination strategies to overcome GBM's survival bottleneck.
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.