Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Temozolomide Versus Temozolomide Alone in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression

Introduction: Glioblastoma is the most aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with limited survival despite multimodal therapy. Tumor-treating fields (TTFs) combined with temozolomide (TMZ) have emerged as a therapeutic option for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM), yet the magnitude, robustness, and generalizability of its benefit remain uncertain. This Bayesian meta-analysis aimed to determine whether the addition of TTFs to TMZ improves survival outcomes and safety profiles in patients with nGBM. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 5 April 2026, for studies comparing TTFs + TMZ with TMZ alone in nGBM (PROSPERO “CRD420261374813”). Outcomes included overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR]), progression-free survival (PFS; HR), and dermatologic adverse effects (proportions). A Bayesian random-effects model with vague priors for overall effects and informative/weakly informative priors for between-study heterogeneity was applied. Sensitivity analyses with alternative prior specifications were performed, and posterior probabilities (PPs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and posterior predictive probabilities (PPPs) were estimated. Results: Twelve studies (one randomized controlled trial and 11 observational studies) comprising 2797 patients were included (TTFs + TMZ: 1228; TMZ: 1569). TTFs + TMZ was associated with improved OS (HR 0.68; 95% CrI 0.57–0.80; 99% PP HR < 1) with a 96% PPP that future studies would also favor TTFs + TMZ. PFS was likewise improved (HR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.58–0.77; 99% PP HR < 1), with a 98% PPP favoring TTFs + TMZ in future studies. Subgroup analyses suggested that risk of bias contributed more to heterogeneity than study design. Among patients receiving TTFs + TMZ, the estimated proportion of dermatologic adverse effects was 57.8% (95% CrI 0.36–0.79), with high PPs of exceeding clinically meaningful thresholds. Conclusions: In this Bayesian meta-analysis, TTFs combined with TMZ was associated with improved OS and PFS in nGBM, although dermatologic toxicity was frequent. These findings support TTFs + TMZ as an effective adjunctive strategy, while emphasizing the importance of patient selection, adherence, and toxicity management.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18121947
Primary Topic
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Temozolomide Versus Temozolomide Alone in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression

Bogdana Suchorska, Nikolai Ramadanov, Petar-Preslav Svetlanov Petrov, Laurens Noack et al.
Cancers
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Temozolomide Versus Temozolomide Alone in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression

Bogdana Suchorska, Nikolai Ramadanov, Petar-Preslav Svetlanov Petrov, Laurens Noack, Lyubomir Gaydarski, Пламен Пенчев, Daniela Milanova-Ilieva, Stefan Stavrevski, Jorge Eduardo Alonso-Vera
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Glioblastoma is the most aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with limited survival despite multimodal therapy. Tumor-treating fields (TTFs) combined with temozolomide (TMZ) have emerged as a therapeutic option for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM), yet the magnitude, robustness, and generalizability of its benefit remain uncertain. This Bayesian meta-analysis aimed to determine whether the addition of TTFs to TMZ improves survival outcomes and safety profiles in patients with nGBM. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 5 April 2026, for studies comparing TTFs + TMZ with TMZ alone in nGBM (PROSPERO “CRD420261374813”). Outcomes included overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR]), progression-free survival (PFS; HR), and dermatologic adverse effects (proportions). A Bayesian random-effects model with vague priors for overall effects and informative/weakly informative priors for between-study heterogeneity was applied. Sensitivity analyses with alternative prior specifications were performed, and posterior probabilities (PPs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and posterior predictive probabilities (PPPs) were estimated. Results: Twelve studies (one randomized controlled trial and 11 observational studies) comprising 2797 patients were included (TTFs + TMZ: 1228; TMZ: 1569). TTFs + TMZ was associated with improved OS (HR 0.68; 95% CrI 0.57–0.80; 99% PP HR < 1) with a 96% PPP that future studies would also favor TTFs + TMZ. PFS was likewise improved (HR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.58–0.77; 99% PP HR < 1), with a 98% PPP favoring TTFs + TMZ in future studies. Subgroup analyses suggested that risk of bias contributed more to heterogeneity than study design. Among patients receiving TTFs + TMZ, the estimated proportion of dermatologic adverse effects was 57.8% (95% CrI 0.36–0.79), with high PPs of exceeding clinically meaningful thresholds. Conclusions: In this Bayesian meta-analysis, TTFs combined with TMZ was associated with improved OS and PFS in nGBM, although dermatologic toxicity was frequent. These findings support TTFs + TMZ as an effective adjunctive strategy, while emphasizing the importance of patient selection, adherence, and toxicity management.

CancersVol. 18(12)
St. George's University (GD), Medical University of Varna (BG), Heidelberg University (DE), Medical University Plovdiv (BG), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), Medical University of Sofia (BG), Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil (EC), University Hospital St. Marina (BG), Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (DE), Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel (DE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.