Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27639294›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2016

Dose and Fractionation in Radiation Therapy of Curative Intent for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Johanna Ramroth, David J Cutter, Sarah C Darby, Geoff S Higgins, Paul McGale, Mike Partridge, Carolyn W Taylor

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Cardiac Events After Radiation Therapy: Combined Analysis of Prospective Multicenter Trials for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Recent advances in early stage lung cancer.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johanna RamrothNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
David J CutterNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Sarah C DarbyNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Geoff S HigginsDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Paul McGaleNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Mike PartridgeCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Carolyn W TaylorNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK. Electronic address: carolyn.taylor@ndph.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GBCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16049Cancer Research UK 19590Cancer Research UK C8225/A21133Medical Research Council MC_U137686858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimum dose and fractionation in radiation therapy of curative intent for non-small cell lung cancer remains uncertain. We undertook a published data meta-analysis of randomized trials to examine whether radiation therapy regimens with higher time-corrected biologically equivalent doses resulted in longer survival, either when given alone or when given with chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible studies were randomized comparisons of 2 or more radiation therapy regimens, with other treatments identical. Median survival ratios were calculated for each comparison and pooled.

results3795 patients in 25 randomized comparisons of radiation therapy dose were studied. The median survival ratio, higher versus lower corrected dose, was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22) when radiation therapy was given alone and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) when it was given with concurrent chemotherapy (P for difference=.001). In comparisons of radiation therapy given alone, the survival benefit increased with increasing dose difference between randomized treatment arms (P for trend=.004). The benefit increased with increasing dose in the lower-dose arm (P for trend=.01) without reaching a level beyond which no further survival benefit was achieved. The survival benefit did not differ significantly between randomized comparisons where the higher-dose arm was hyperfractionated and those where it was not. There was heterogeneity in the median survival ratio by geographic region (P<.001), average age at randomization (P<.001), and year trial started (P for trend=.004), but not for proportion of patients with squamous cell carcinoma (P=.2).

conclusionsIn trials with concurrent chemotherapy, higher radiation therapy doses resulted in poorer survival, possibly caused, at least in part, by high levels of toxicity. Where radiation therapy was given without chemotherapy, progressively higher radiation therapy doses resulted in progressively longer survival, and no upper dose level was found above which there was no further benefit. These findings support the consideration of further radiation therapy dose escalation trials, making use of modern treatment methods to reduce toxicity.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationAgedCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCarcinoma, Squamous CellCombined Modality TherapyHumansLung NeoplasmsMiddle AgedRadiotherapy DosageRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID27639294
PMCPMC5082441
OpenAlexW2485866634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.