ArticleClinical lung cancer2018
Comparison of Single- and Three-fraction Schedules of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Peripheral Early-stage Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Clinical lung cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for bone only oligometastatic breast cancer: A prospective clinical trial.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Trial
- One Versus Three Fractions of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Peripheral Stage I to II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multi-Institution, Phase 2 Trial.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2019Trial
- Long-term Follow-up on NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927): A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing 2 Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Schedules for Medically Inoperable Patients With Stage I Peripheral Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2019Trial
- Single- Versus Multi-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Primary Lung Cancer and Pulmonary Oligometastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Review
- Moving towards single fraction peripheral lung stereotactic body radiation therapy: patient care during and after the global COVID-19 pandemic.Lung cancer management · 2025Article
- Long-Term Survival and Failure Outcomes of Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Early Stage NSCLC.JTO clinical and research reports · 2023Article
- An optimal dose-fractionation for stereotactic body radiotherapy in peripherally, centrally and ultracentrally located early-stage non-small lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2023Review
- Association of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio with survival in peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer after stereotactic body radiation therapy.BMC cancer · 2023Observational
- Review
- Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- A multi-institutional analysis of fractionated versus single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of primary lung tumors: a comparison between two antipodal fractionations.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021Article
- Prior Treatment for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients who Undergo Definitive Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for a Subsequent Lung Malignancy: A Retrospective Multivariate and Matched Pair Analysis.American journal of clinical oncology · 2021Article
- A novel and clinically useful dynamic conformal arc (DCA)-based VMAT planning technique for lung SBRT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- A simple, yet novel hybrid-dynamic conformal arc therapy planning via flattening filter-free beam for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Flattening filter free VMAT for a stereotactic, single-dose of 30 Gy to lung lesion in a 15-min treatment slot.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Long term results of single high dose Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the treatment of primary lung tumors.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: A review.World journal of clinical oncology · 2019Review
- A pilot study of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) after surgery for stage III non-small cell lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Paradigm During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic and Beyond?Advances in radiation oncologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had undergone either single-fraction (SF) or three-fraction (TF) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) at a single institution during over 8-year period. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with peripherally located early-stage NSCLC who had undergone SBRT from February 2007 to November 2015 were included in the present study. SBRT was delivered without heterogeneity correction. Data were retrospectively reviewed and collected in an institutional review board-approved database. R software (version 3.3.2) was used for statistical analysis.
resultsOf 159 total lung tumors, 65 lesions received 30 Gy (median, 30 Gy) in 1 fraction, and 94 lesions received 48 to 60 Gy (median, 60 Gy) in 3 fractions. Patients with a Karnofsky performance status < 80 were more common in the SF-SBRT cohort (P = .050). After a median follow-up of 22.2 and 26.2 months for the SF-SBRT and TF-SBRT cohorts, respectively (P = .29), no statistically significant difference was found in overall survival (P = .86), progression-free survival (P = .95), local failure (P = .95), nodal failure (P = .91), and distant failure (P = .49) at 24 months. At 1 and 2 years, the overall survival rates were 86.1% and 63.2% for the SF-SBRT cohort and 80.8% and 61.6% for the TF-SBRT cohort, respectively. At 1 and 2 years, the local control rates were 95.1% and 87.8% for the SF-SBRT cohort and 92.7% and 86.2% for the TF-SBRT cohort, respectively. Both regimens were well tolerated.
conclusionDespite more patients with poor performance status in the SF-SBRT cohort, the SF- and TF-SBRT regimens showed no differences in clinical outcomes. SF-SBRT is now our standard approach.
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.