Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive type of primary malignant brain tumor. Carmustine is used by intravenous injection or local implantation in the resection cavity for gliomas, including GBMs. However, the therapeutic potential of carmustine is not well-recognized. This analysis aimed to evaluate the survival benefits of carmustine in glioma patients, especially those with GBM. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies regarding carmustine for glioma treatment were searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from January 1979 to March 2020. Quality assessment was conducted with Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scales (NOS). Statistical analysis was conducted by the Revman 5.3 software. Results: Twenty-two eligible RCTs and cohort studies involving 5,821 glioma patients were included. Overall, glioma patients receiving carmustine as an adjuvant therapy had better progression-free survival [PFS; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.77-0.94, P = 0.002] and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.92, P < 0.0001) than those without carmustine treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that the OS benefit was observed in GBM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.78-0.91, P < 0.00001) but not in anaplastic glioma patients (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70-2.07, P = 0.50). Additionally, both newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM patients who received carmustine treatment showed better OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.79-0.95, P = 0.002; HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.67-0.89, P = 0.0002, respectively). Both carmustine implantation in resection cavity and intravenous administration significantly prolonged OS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.78-0.92, P < 0.0001; HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.75-0.99, P = 0.04, respectively). Moreover, GBM patients receiving a combined carmustine and temozolomide (TMZ) therapy had longer OS than those receiving TMZ alone (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.63-0.97, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Carmustine implantation in resection cavity provides survival benefit for GBM patients, and it may be a promising supplement to standard therapeutic protocol by offering a bridge between surgical resection and onset of TMZ therapy.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the neuroprotective effect of progesterone administration on severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) for different follow-up periods and administration route by completing a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and the Web of Science (from establishment of each to September 1, 2018) was performed to identify original RCTs that evaluated the associations between progesterone treatment and the prognosis of patients with severe TBI.ResultsEight RCTs enrolling 2,251 patients with severe TBI were included. Within 3 months post-injury, patients with progesterone administration had a lower mortality (risk ratio [RR] =0.59; 95% CI [0.42–0.81], P=0.001) and better neurologic outcomes (RR =1.51; 95% CI [1.12–2.02], P=0.007) than those who received placebo. However, these differences did not persist at 6 months post-injury for mortality (RR =0.96; 95% CI [0.65–1.41], P=0.83) or neurologic outcomes (RR =1.09; 95% CI [0.93–1.27], P=0.31). The analysis stratified by administration route showed that beneficial effects were only observed in patients who received progesterone intramuscularly (RR =1.61, 95% CI [1.19–2.18], P=0.002); no benefit was observed with intravenous administration (RR =0.99, 95% CI [0.91–1.07], P=0.75).ConclusionProgesterone administration improved the clinical outcomes of severe TBI patients within 3 months but may not have significant long-term benefits 6 months post-injury.