ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
From barrier to bridge: a scoping review on the methods, clinical efficacy, and safety of blood-brain barrier disruption in treating high-grade glioma.
Article 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBlood-brain barrier disruption (BBBD) strategies for treating high-grade gliomas (HGGs) have advanced rapidly, yet consensus regarding clinical efficacy remains lacking. A comprehensive review of BBBD methods is needed to consolidate outcomes and guide clinical adoption and research.
methodsA scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was performed to identify studies reporting methods and efficacy outcomes of BBBD for HGG. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Clinical studies testing any BBBD method in adult HGG were included if they reported at least one predefined efficacy endpoint: median overall or progression-free survival, brain drug concentration, or radiographic response. Neurological adverse events (AEs) attributed to BBBD were recorded.
resultsThirty-seven studies (498 participants) met inclusion criteria and evaluated intra-arterial hyperosmolar mannitol, ultrasound with microbubbles, laser interstitial thermal therapy, liposomal encapsulation, or regadenoson. Seven ultrasound studies reported pharmacokinetic evidence of increased drug delivery, with brain drug concentration increases ranging from 2 to 5.93-fold. Radiographic responses were variably reported and were not comparable across modalities. Survival outcomes were primarily reported in single-arm studies, and use of comparator arms was limited to nonrandomized or historical controls. Seizure was the most common BBBD-associated AE, particularly with intra-arterial hyperosmolar mannitol (55/146, 37.7%).
conclusionsBBBD represents a promising strategy for HGG treatment, with pharmacokinetic evidence of increased brain drug delivery and exploratory survival data reported in early trials. Although high-grade AEs were uncommon, seizures were prevalent in hyperosmolar mannitol studies. Prospective randomized controlled trials incorporating modern molecular classification are needed to define future clinical applications. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41922786What 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.