Lomustine with or without procarbazine in recurrent glioblastoma - A propensity score matching analysis
Clicks: 3
ID: 323084
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #104 of 111 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Advances
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite recent advances, survival in patients with glioblastoma remains poor. Outside clinical trials, lomustine is commonly considered standard of care in recurrent disease. However, comparative data between lomustine and other chemotherapy regimens are limited. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients from seven certified neuro-oncology centers in Germany to compare lomustine monotherapy with combination therapy using lomustine and procarbazine in first recurrence of glioblastoma. Propensity score matching was applied to obtain comparable groups based on sex, age, extent of resection at primary diagnosis, Karnofsky performance status at the start of recurrence therapy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. Post-recurrence survival (PRS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Results Seventy-seven patients were matched in each treatment group. PRS was comparable, with a median of 11.6 months for lomustine monotherapy and 10.0 months for lomustine plus procarbazine (log-rank test, p = 0.120). Multivariable Cox regression showed no significant difference (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93–1.90, p = 0.123). PFS was shorter in patients receiving combination therapy compared to monotherapy (3.7 vs. 5.1 months, log-rank test, p = 0.042). Multivariable Cox regression did not reveal significant differences (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.90–1.90, p = 0.166). Conclusions Our data indicate that potential additive toxicity by intensified combination chemotherapy should be avoided due to lack of efficacy compared to lomustine monotherapy.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7171968691
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Tareq Haedenkamp, Anna Fischl, Michael Gerken, Tanja Rothhammer-Hampl, Amelie Fassbender, Verena Klein, Ilon Liu, Katharina Layer, Amani Suboh, Anna‐Luisa Luger, Iris Mildenberger, Johannes Weller, Sied Kebir, Teresa Schmidt, Thomas Zeyen, Martin Glas, Ulrich Herrlinger, Julia Onken, Michael Platten, Friederike Schmidt‐Graf, Joachim P Steinbach, Ralf Linker, Markus J Riemenschneider, Martin Proescholdt, Julia Maurer, Elisabeth Bumes, Peter Hau |
| Journal | Neuro-Oncology Advances |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/noajnl/vdag197
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.