ArticleRadiology and oncology2020
Long-term toxicity and survival outcomes after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for patients with centrally located thoracic tumors.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Tracheobronchial Tumors.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
- Verification of an optimizer algorithm by the beam delivery evaluation of intensity-modulated arc therapy plans.Radiology and oncology · 2021Article
- Late Central Airway Toxicity after High-Dose Radiotherapy: Clinical Outcomes and a Proposed Bronchoscopic Classification.Cancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is effective for thoracic cancer and metastases; however, adverse effects are greater for central tumors. We evaluated factors affecting outcomes and toxicities after SABR for patients with primary lung and oligometastatic tumors. Patients and methods We retrospectively identified consecutive patients with centrally located lung tumors that were treated at our hospital from 2009-2016. The effects of patient, disease, and treatment-related parameters on local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and toxicity-free survival (TFS) were evaluated with multivariate analyses. Results Among 65 consecutive patients identified with 70 centrally located tumors, 20 tumors (28%) were reirradiated. Median (range) total dose for all tumors was 55 (30-60) Gy in 5 (3-10) fractions. Radiographic complete response was obtained in 43 lesions (61%). None of the analyzed factors were correlated with complete response. After a median follow-up of 57 (95% CI, 48-65) months, 10 tumors (14%) relapsed and 37 patients (57%) died; the actuarial 2- and 5-year OS rates were 52% and 28%, respectively. Median OS was significantly lower in patients with grade 3 or higher toxicity vs. lower toxicity (5 vs. 39 months; P < 0.001). Among 17 severe toxicities, 5 were grade 5, and 3 of them were reirradiated to the same field. Grade 3 to 5 TFS was lower with vs. without reirradiation (2-year TFS, 63% vs. 96%; P = 0.02). Conclusions Our study showed that modern SABR is effective for central lung tumors, and toxicities are acceptable. SABR for reirradiated central lung lesions and possibly for lesions abutting the tracheobronchial tree may result in higher risk of serious toxicities.
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.