ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2016
SABR vs. Limited Resection for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Are We Closer to an Answer?
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison among stereotactic body radiation therapy, lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Patient-clinician communication and patient-centered outcomes among patients with suspected stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective cohort study.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2022Article
- Segmentectomy or Wedge Resection in Stage IA Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma?Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
- Shared decision making in the treatment of stage I non small cell lung cancer-a choice which should equally involve both sides.Annals of translational medicine · 2017Article
- Pros: After stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for a peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, radiological suspicion of a local recurrence can be sufficient indication to proceed to salvage therapy.Translational lung cancer research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementLobectomy is currently the guideline-recognized gold standard for the treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) in patients who are surgical candidates. In patients who are not medically fit for surgery, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the treatment of choice with good reported rates of local control and overall survival. For patients at high risk for lobectomy, sublobar resection (SLR) may achieve similar outcomes as lobectomy, especially for peripheral tumors ≤2 cm. While there are merits to both SLR and SABR for these high-risk patients, evidence is conflicting on which may be preferred in the context of clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes. For SABR, a histologic diagnosis is preferred prior to treatment. However, some individuals may be at high risk for biopsy, and a likelihood-of-malignancy probability threshold of >85 % has been proposed as reasonable to proceed with SABR in a positron emission tomography (PET)-positive lesion without histology. Increased risks of SABR are noted in ultra-central tumors and in patients recently treated with anti-VEGF therapy. Co-existing interstitial lung disease can cause increased treatment-related toxicity in both SABR and surgery. Toxicity is generally well tolerated for SABR and SLR, though treatment-related mortality may be higher in surgery. Ongoing comparative effectiveness research, especially through randomized control trials, is crucial in further delineating the roles of SLR and SABR in the treatment of ES-NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27098533What 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.