ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Impact of tumor-treating fields on the survival of Japanese patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- RANO 2.0: critical updates and practical considerations for radiological assessment in neuro-oncology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Relation between tumor treating fields usage rate ≥75% for the first 3 months and progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed WHO grade 4 gliomas.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- A phase 2 study of niraparib concomitant with tumor treating fields in patients with recurrent grade 4 glioma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
50 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The EF-14 clinical trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of tumor-treating fields (TTFields) for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. This study aimed to clarify the current status, safety, and efficacy of TTFields in Japanese patients who meet the EF-14 inclusion criteria. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Background, treatment, and outcome data of patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria of the EF-14 trial were collected from 45 institutions across Japan. The rate, determinants, and current status of TTField use, including its safety and efficacy in terms of progression and survival, were retrospectively investigated. This study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE checklist. Results: Among the 607 patients enrolled, 70 were excluded due to progressive disease during radiation and temozolomide therapy, age > 80 years old, and Karnofsky Performance Status score of <70. Among the remaining 537 patients, 210 (39%) underwent TTField treatment. Multivariate analysis revealed younger age and spouse as a caregiver as significant factors for TTField use. The compliance rate of TTField use exceeded 75% in 60% of patients, with a median TTField usage duration of 11 months. Skin disorders requiring medical treatment occurred in 56% of patients. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis in the whole series and propensity score-matched analysis revealed that TTField use was not a prognostic factor for progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Conclusions: TTField use did not have a substantial effect on either PFS or OS in Japanese patients with glioblastoma, despite compliance rates comparable to those observed in the EF-14.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.