ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021
Treatment outcomes of re-irradiation using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy to lung: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-evaluating previous dose and allowing increasing recovery (REPAIR): study protocol for a thoracic reirradiation phase I dose escalation trial.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- On the Use of 4D-PET/CT for the Safe SBRT Re-Irradiation of Central Lung Recurrence Within Radiation-Induced Fibrosis: A Clinical Case.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- STRILL: Phase I Trial Evaluating Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Dose Escalation for Re-Irradiation of Inoperable Peripheral Lung Lesions.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety analysis in metastatic cancer patients treated with multiple courses of repeat radiation therapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the treatment efficacy and safety of re-irradiation (re-RT) using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and initial SABR for primary, recurrent lung cancer or metastatic lung tumor.
methodsA retrospective review of the medical records of 336 patients who underwent lung SABR was performed. Re-RT was defined as the overlap of the 70% isodose line of second-course SABR with that of the initial radiotherapy, and 20 patients were classified as the re-RT group. The median dose of re-RT using SABR was 54 Gy (range 48-60 Gy), and the median fraction number was 4 (range 4-6). One-to-three case-matched analysis with propensity score matching was used, and 60 patients were included in the initial SABR group of the matched cohort.
resultsThe 1- and 2-year local control rates for the re-RT group were 73.9% and 63.3% and those for the initial SABR group in the matched cohort were 92.9% and 87.7%, respectively (P = 0.013). There was no difference in distant metastasis-free, progression-free, and overall survival rates. The crude grade ≥ 2 toxicity rates were 40.0% for the re-RT group and 25.0% for the initial SABR group (P = 0.318). Re-RT group had higher acute grade ≥ 2 toxicity rates (25.0% vs 5.0%, P = 0.031). One incident of grade 3 toxicity (pulmonary) was reported in the re-RT group; there was no grade 4‒5 toxicity.
conclusionsThe local control rate of the in-field re-RT SABR was lower than that of the initial SABR without compromising the survival rates. The toxicity of re-RT using SABR was acceptable.
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.