ArticleRadiology and oncology2018
A Population-based Study of the Effectiveness of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Fractionated Radiotherapy for Clinical Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy vs conventional radiotherapy in inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based study.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Old age and EGFR mutation status in inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving stereotactic ablative radiotherapy: A single institute experience of 71 patients in Taiwan.Thoracic cancer · 2023Review
- Safety of image-guided radiotherapy in definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a population-based analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2021Observational
- Observational
- Comparative effectiveness of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of clinical stage IIIb lung adenocarcinoma patients with mutant EGFR.Thoracic cancer · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a promising option for non-operated early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). However, results from conclusive randomized controlled trials are not yet available. The aim of our study was to explore the effectiveness of SABR vs. CFRT for non-operated early-stage NSCLC. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe used a comprehensive population-based database to identify clinical stage I non-operated NSCLC patients in Taiwan diagnosed from 2007 to 2013 who were treated with either SABR or CFRT. We used inverse probability weighting and the propensity score as the primary form of analysis to address the nonrandomization of treatment. In the supplementary analyses, we constructed subgroups based on propensity score matching to compare survival between patients treated with SABR vs. CFRT.
resultsWe identified 238 patients in our primary analysis. A good balance of covariates was achieved using the propensity score weighting. Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different between those treated with SABR vs. CFRT (SABR vs. CFRT: probability weighting adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.586, 95% confidence interval 0.264-1.101, p = 0.102). However, SABR was significantly favored in supplementary analyses.
conclusionsIn this population-based propensity-score adjusted analysis, we found that OS was not significantly different between those treated with SABR
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.