ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Ten-Year Experience of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy at a Single Institution: Impact of Technological Development on the Outcome of Patients With Early Lung Cancer.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdvanced radiotherapeutic techniques and apparatus have been developed and widely applied in stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, but their clinical benefits have not necessarily been confirmed. This study was performed to review our 10-year experience with therapy for the disease and to evaluate whether the advanced radiotherapeutic system implemented in our hospital 5 years after we began the therapy improved the clinical outcomes of patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent the therapy at our hospital between April 2008 and March 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into 2 groups treated with the conventional system or the advanced system, and the characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. The same analyses were also performed in propensity-matched patients from the 2 groups.
resultsAmong the 73 patients eligible for this study, 42 were treated with the conventional system and 31 with the advanced system. All were treated as planned, and severe adverse events were rare. The local progression-free survival rate in the advanced system group was significantly higher than in the conventional system group (P = 0.025). In the propensity-matched patients, both the local progression-free survival rate and the overall survival rate were significantly higher compared in the advanced system group than the conventional system group (P = 0.089 and 0.080, respectively).
conclusionThe advanced system improved the outcomes of patients with the disease, suggesting that technological development has had a strong impact on clinical outcomes.
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.