ReviewSeminars in oncology2017
Surveillance imaging following definitive radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: What is the clinical impact?
Review in Seminars in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictability of clinical outcomes after external beam radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma according to tumor marker dynamics.PloS one · 2025Article
- Follow-Up Imaging Guidelines for Patients with Stage III Unresectable NSCLC: Recommendations Based on the PACIFIC Trial.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists' interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Recurrence rates at all stages are high, but evidence-based post-treatment surveillance imaging strategies to detect recurrence are poorly defined, and salvage options are frequently limited. A number of national and international oncology guidelines address post-treatment imaging, but are largely based on low-level, retrospective evidence because of a paucity of high-quality data, particularly in regard to cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life endpoints. Given the lack of randomized data addressing appropriate surveillance imaging modality and interval following definitive treatment of lung cancer, there remains an unmet clinical need. Meaningful surveillance endpoints should include the financial impact, patient quality-of-life outcomes, and access-to-care issues associated with intensive follow-up to ensure that guidelines reflect quality and sustainability. A need for prospective randomized data on the subject of imaging surveillance after definitive local therapy remains an unmet need, and an opportunity for collaboration and further research.
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.