ArticleOncotarget2016
Radiobiological modeling of two stereotactic body radiotherapy schedules in patients with stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the radiobiological response of two stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) schedules for patients with stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using radiobiological modeling methods. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based SBRT plans were designed using two dose schedules of 1 × 34 Gy (34 Gy in 1 fraction) and 4 × 12 Gy (48 Gy in 4 fractions) for 19 patients diagnosed with primary stage I NSCLC. Dose to the gross target volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), lung and chest wall (CW) were converted to biologically equivalent dose in 2 Gy fraction (EQD2) for comparison. Five different radiobiological models were employed to predict the tumor control probability (TCP) value. Three additional models were utilized to estimate the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) value for the lung and the modified equivalent uniform dose (mEUD) value to the CW. Our result indicates that the 1 × 34 Gy dose schedule provided a higher EQD2 dose to the tumor, lung and CW. Radiobiological modeling revealed that the TCP value for the tumor, NTCP value for the lung and mEUD value for the CW were 7.4% (in absolute value), 7.2% (in absolute value) and 71.8% (in relative value) higher on average, respectively, using the 1 × 34 Gy dose schedule.
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.