Observational studyClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2017
CT scan prior to radiotherapy in unresectable, locally advanced, non-small cell carcinoma of the lung: is it always necessary?
Observational study in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2017. 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.
- NeoPred: dual-phase CT AI forecasts pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy in NSCLC.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is broad consensus regarding evaluating response to chemotherapy (CHT) by means of computerized tomography (CT) in patients with localized or locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). We present a study comparing the usefulness of CT versus chest X-ray (XR) and clinical findings when indicating radiotherapy (RT) following CHT.
methodsNinety-eight of 150 subjects with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC were blindly and independently evaluated by XR and CT, with pairs of chest XR and CT (before and after CHT). A null hypothesis (H0) was established of the conditioned probability of detecting progression by CT and not by XR of 10 % or more, with a statistical power of 80 %.
resultsSensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of XR versus CT were 98, 89, 99, and 80 % respectively. A 4 % (p = 0.0451) probability of improvement of CT versus XR was calculated, enabling the H0 to be ruled out.
conclusionThe CT failed to prove to be significantly superior to the chest XR + clinical picture in indicating a change in treatment approach in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC after CHT.
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.