ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Intrathecal chemotherapy for leptomeningeal metastasis of non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is a severe complication of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is increasingly detected due to improved diagnostics. Intrathecal therapy, which involves delivering drugs directly into the subarachnoid space, has become a key treatment approach. A variety of cytotoxic drugs, targeted therapies, immune-checkpoint inhibitors, and combination treatments are now available through different intrathecal protocols, offering new hope to patients. Methods: Extensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIP. Data collected included histological subtype, intrathecal delivery method, treatment regimen, median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) in ≥10% of patients. Results: Twelve clinical studies with 544 patients (average age 53.27 years) met the criteria. Drug delivery was via lumbar puncture or Ommaya reservoir. Objective response rates were 34.5%-86.4%, and disease control rates were 62.5%-94.9%. Three trials reported progression-free survival of 3.5, 6.3, and 9.6 months, with overall survival from 3.66 to 17 months. AEs in over 10% of patients included myelosuppression, gastrointestinal issues, and neurological symptoms. Conclusion: Intrathecal therapy offers significant clinical benefits, especially when combined with other treatments, with a manageable toxicity profile.
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.