SynthesisMedicine2020
A meta-analysis comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy vs conventional radiotherapy in inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic cancers: a 25-year review of safety outcomes by the ENRSO Group.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Immunological biomarkers for precision stereotactic body radiation therapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer in Patients With COPD: Predictors of Surgery and Long-Term Survival Following Lung Resection.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2026Article
- CT imaging findings following treatment with combination SBRT and chemotherapy versus stand-alone chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Improved commissioning of lung stereotactic body radiotherapy using a customized respiratory motion Phantom: a single- institutional study.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based study.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Integrative Approaches in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Management: The Role of Radiotherapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Chinese clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced esophagitis.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Systematic review of economic evaluations on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) compared to other radiotherapy techniques or surgical procedures for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Review
- Neoadjuvant SBRT combined with immunotherapy in NSCLC: from mechanisms to therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Adverse Events Following Limited Resection versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Early Stage Lung Cancer.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
- Novel Harmonization Method for Multi-Centric Radiomic Studies in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Feasibility of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy on Unresectable Stage III NSCLC with Peripheral Primary Tumor: A Prospective Study (GFPC 01-14).Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) superseded conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for the treatment of patients with inoperable early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over a decade ago. However, the direct comparisons of the outcomes of SBRT and CRT remain controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival and safety of SBRT and CRT in patients with inoperable stage I NSCLC.
methodsWe systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Google Scholar for relevant articles. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS), local control rate (LCR) and adverse effects (AEs) were the primary outcomes.
resultsWe identified 11,110 articles, 17 of which were eventually included in this study; these 17 articles had 17,973 patients (SBRT: 7395; CRT: 10,578). Compared to CRT for the treatment of inoperable stage I NSCLC, SBRT had superior survival in terms of OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.70, P < .00001), LCSS (HR: 0.42 [0.35-0.50], P < .00001), and PFS (HR: 0.34 [0.25-0.48], P < .00001). The 4-year OS rate (OSR); 4-year LCSS rate (LCSSR); 3-year local control rate (LCR); 5-year PFS rate (PFSR) with SBRT were all higher than those with CRT. With regard to all-grade AEs, the SBRT group had a significantly lower rate of dyspnea, esophagitis and radiation pneumonitis; no significant difference was found in grade 3-5 AEs (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68 [0.30-1.53], P = .35).
conclusionsWith better survival and a lower rate of dyspnea, esophagitis and radiation pneumonitis than CRT, SBRT appears to be more suitable for patients with inoperable stage I NSCLC.
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.