ArticleRadiation oncology journal2016
Comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus sequential radiochemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology journal, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent vs. sequential chemoradiotherapy: a survival boost for lung cancer patients.Biomedical engineering online · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur institution has implemented two different adjuvant protocols in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-CCRT) and sequential postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) followed by postoperative chemotherapy (POCT). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the two adjuvant protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom March 1997 to October 2012, 68 patients were treated with CT-CCRT (n = 25) and sequential PORT followed by POCT (RT-CT; n = 43). The CT-CCRT protocol consisted of 2 cycles of cisplatin-based POCT followed by PORT concurrently with 2 cycles of POCT. The RT-CT protocol consisted of PORT followed by 4 cycles of cisplatin-based POCT. PORT was administered using conventional fractionation with a dose of 50.4-60 Gy. We compared the outcomes between the two adjuvant protocols and analyzed the clinical factors affecting survivals.
resultsMedian follow-up time was 43.9 months (range, 3.2 to 74.0 months), and the 5-year overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were 53.9%, 68.2%, and 51.0%, respectively. There were no significant differences in OS (p = 0.074), LRFS (p = 0.094), and DMFS (p = 0.490) between the two protocols. In multivariable analyses, adjuvant protocol remained as a significant prognostic factor for LRFS, favouring CT-CCRT (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.506, p = 0.046) over RT-CT, not for OS (HR = 0.647, p = 0.229).
conclusionCT-CCRT protocol increased LRFS more than RT-CT protocol in patients with completely resected NSCLC, but not in OS. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the benefit of CCRT strategy compared with sequential strategy.
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.