SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026
A comparative study of Ommaya reservoir versus lumbar puncture for intrathecal chemotherapy in patients with leptomeningeal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The scientific evolution of the Ommaya reservoir: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is a lethal complication of advanced malignancy with limited therapeutic options and poor survival. Intrathecal chemotherapy represents a standard treatment for LM and can be administered via repeated lumbar puncture (LP) or an intraventricular Ommaya reservoir. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of these two administration routes remain unclear. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of intrathecal chemotherapy delivered by Ommaya reservoir versus LP in patients with LM, and to provide further evidence for clarifying the advantages of the Ommaya reservoir in clinical practice.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for relevant studies published between 1986 and 2026. Studies directly comparing intrathecal chemotherapy delivered via Ommaya reservoir and LP were included in the meta-analysis. Disease control rate (DCR) was pooled as odds ratios (OR) using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to account for between-study heterogeneity, and overall survival (OS) was pooled as hazard ratios (HR) using the inverse-variance method. Because adverse events (AEs) were incompletely reported in comparative studies, an additional safety analysis including single-arm cohorts was conducted using a binomial generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
resultsA total of four comparative studies with a moderate overall risk of bias were included in our meta-analysis. Three studies contributed data on DCR, and three studies contributed data on OS. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in DCR between the Ommaya and LP groups (OR 2.03; 95% CI 0.53-7.78, p = 0.30), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 66%). In contrast, Ommaya-based intraventricular delivery was associated with significantly improved OS compared with LP (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.61, p < 0.0001), with no significant heterogeneity (I² = 0%). In the exploratory safety analysis of six single-arm cohorts, the estimated probability of overall AEs was numerically lower in the Ommaya group (OR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87, p = 0.0191). While this finding is derived from non-comparative data and should be treated cautiously, it offers valuable insight into safety profile.
conclusionOmmaya reservoir-based intraventricular administration of intrathecal chemotherapy may provide a survival advantage over LP in patients with LM, while demonstrating a generally acceptable and manageable safety profile. Further comparative studies with standardized response criteria and rigorous safety reporting are warranted.
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.