Evidence Hub

Clinical Guidelines for Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumour Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

P. A. Pimentel, A. Giuliano, P. Odatzoglou, N. Ignatenko, R. Wenceslau, I. O. Almeida, Paloma Helena Sanches da Silva, Mariana de Pádua Costa et al.

Veterinary and Comparative Oncology, 2025

14 citations

Abstract

The treatment of canine transmissible venereal tumour (CTVT) has evolved since its initial description in 1810. Initially considered untreatable in the early 20th century, extensive research over time has significantly advanced our understanding of its aetiopathogenesis. This led to successful chemotherapy treatments, which have shown superior outcomes compared to surgical interventions. Vincristine, in particular, has proven effective in treating CTVT. However, the development of chemoresistance underscores the need to explore alternative therapeutic options. This systematic review provides a comprehensive analysis of CTVT treatment practices from 1950 to 2023, aiming to establish a gold standard and enhance clinical decision-making. Initially, 3633 studies were identified, with 42 meeting the eligibility criteria. Our findings suggest that vincristine sulphate monotherapy is the recommended first-line treatment for CTVT. Administering vincristine intravenously at a dosage of 0.5-0.75 mg/m2 weekly for 4-6 sessions resulted in a 93.1% (67.4%-100%) complete response rate in dogs. Extending the treatment to eight sessions increased the complete response rate to 98.9% (83.3%-100%). Radiation therapy, lomustine and doxorubicin are viable second-line treatment options; however, extensive cohort studies are required to confirm their efficacy in achieving remission in vincristine-resistant cases. Additionally, no clear criteria could be established for initiating treatment with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free