ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2016
Did dose escalated radiotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer improve overall survival?
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How much primary tumor metabolic volume reduction is required to improve outcome in stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy? A single-centre experience.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Inhibition of protein kinase CK2 sensitizes non-small cell lung cancer cells to cisplatin via upregulation of PML.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiotherapy has been applied in the treatment for lung cancer patients for many years, especially those with advanced stage disease who cannot be treated with surgery. However, if these advanced stage patients should be treated with standard dosage therapy (60 Gy) or high dosage therapy (>60 Gy) remains a hot debated point. Literature related to this topic would be reviewed here. We believe standard dosage therapy should be strongly recommended, and high dosage therapy might benefit patients with high risk factors patients.
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.