SynthesisZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2016
[Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of VATS and SBRT in the Treatment of NSCLC].
Synthesis in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 2016. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of gefitinib on serum EGFR and CYFRA21-1 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Oncology letters · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveMore and more chest physicians chose video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) to treat early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In recent years, there is still lack of a random trial comparing the clinical outcomes of VATS and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in treating NSCLC. To provide a reference for the choice between VATS and SBRT, in the current meta-analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of these two therapies in treating NSCLC.
methodsFive major medical databases, CNKI, CPVIP (http://www.cqvip.com/), PubMed, Embase, and ISI web of science were systematically searched to identify all studies from January 2010 to February 2016 on VATS and SBRT therapies. Finally, original English or Chinese publications of stage I and II NSCLC with adequate patients and adequate SBRT doses were enrolled. A multivariate random effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis to compare overall survival and disease free survival between VATS and SBRT while adjusting for median age and operable patient numbers.
resultsFourteen VATS studies (included 3,482 patients) and nineteen SBRT studies (included 3,997 patients) published in the same period were eligible. The median age and follow-up duration were 64 years and 43.4 months for VATS patients and 74 years and 29.5 months for SBRT patients, respectively. The mean unadjusted overall survival rates at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years with VATS were 93.5%, 84.9%, 77.0% and 76.3% compared to 89.0% 73.3% 59.0% and 36.7% with SBRT. The mean unadjusted disease free survival rates at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years with VATS were 93.6%, 88.6%, 85.6% and 75.6% compared to 79.3%, 72.1%, 64.9% and 58.9% with SBRT. While, after adjusted for proportion of operable patients and median age, the estimate overall survival rates at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years with VATS were 94%, 92%, 84% and 71% compared to 98%, 95%, 87% and 83% with SBRT. And the estimate disease free survival rates at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years with VATS were 97%, 94%, 85% and 75% compared to 88%, 81%, 74% and 63% with SBRT.
conclusionBefore adjustment, the SBRT group showed worse clinical outcomes (overall survival and disease free survival) than VATS group. When take consider of median age and operability, the patients with SBRT differ substantially from patients treated with VATS. After adjustment of median age and operability, there are no significant differences between these two therapy in treating NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.