4.6 Review

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for newly diagnosed elderly glioblastoma patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257384

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review found no evidence of a difference between the evaluated HRTs for efficacy and safety.
Objective To evaluate different hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for newly diagnosed elderly glioblastoma (GBM) patients. Methods We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), including searches on CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, clinical trial databases and manual search. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Primary outcomes: overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes: progression-free-survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) table for assessing individual studies and CINeMA for evaluating the certainty of the final body of evidence. Results Four RCTs (499 patients) were included. For OS, the estimates from NMA did not provide strong evidence of a difference between the HRTs: 40 Gray (Gy) versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.89; CI 95%: 0.42, 1.91); 34 Gy versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.85; CI 95% 0.43, 1.70); 25 Gy versus 45 Gy (HR: 0.81; CI 95% 0.32, 2.02); 34 Gy versus 40 Gy (HR: 0.95; CI 95% 0.57, 1.61); and 25 Gy versus 34 Gy (HR: 0.95; CI 95% 0.46, 1.97). We performed qualitative synthesis for AE and QoL due to data scarcity and clinical heterogeneity among studies. The four studies reported a similar QoL (assessed by different methods) between arms. One RCT reported grade >= 3 AE, with no evidence of a difference between arms. PFS was reported in one study (25 Gy versus 40 Gy), with no evidence of a difference between arms. Conclusion This review found no evidence of a difference between the evaluated HRTs for efficacy and safety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available