Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35282118›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ran Zhang, Jingjing Kang, Shengxiang Ren, Ligang Xing, Yaping Xu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Imaging Follow-Up of Nonsurgical Therapies for Lung Cancer:AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ran Zhang *Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Jingjing Kang *Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Shengxiang RenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital & Institute of Thoracic Cancer, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Ligang XingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Yaping XuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital · CNShandong First Medical University · CNTongji University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are recommended for patients with inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with both offering promising results. However, it is largely unknown which of these two treatment modalities provides superior benefits for patients. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes and safety between SBRT and RFA in patients with inoperable early-stage NSCLC. Methods: Eligible studies published between 2001 and 2020 were obtained through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Original English-language studies on the treatment of early-stage NSCLC with SBRT or RFA were included. Local control (LC) rates, overall survival (OS) rates, and adverse events were obtained by pooled analyses. Results: Eighty-seven SBRT studies (12,811 patients) and 18 RFA studies (1,535 patients) met the eligibility criteria. For SBRT, the LC rates (with 95% confidence intervals) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years were 98% (97-98%), 95% (95-96%), 92% (91-93%), and 92% (91-93%), respectively, which were significantly higher than those for RFA [75% (69-82%), 31% (22-39%), 67% (58-76%), and 41% (30-52%), respectively] (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in short-term OS between SBRT and RFA [1-year OS rate: 87% (86-88%) versus 89% (88-91%), P=0.07; 2-year OS rate: 71% (69-72%) versus 69% (64-74%), P=0.42]. Regarding long-term OS, the 3- and 5-year OS rates for SBRT were 58% (56-59%) and 39% (37-40%), respectively, which were significantly (P<0.01) superior to those for RFA [48% (45-51%) and 21% (19-23%), respectively]. The most common complication of SBRT was radiation pneumonitis (grade ≥2), making up 9.1% of patients treated with SBRT, while pneumothorax was the most common complication of RFA, making up 27.2% of patients treated with RFA. Discussion: Compared with RFA, SBRT has superior LC and long-term OS rates but similar short-term OS rates. Prospective randomized trials with large sample sizes comparing the efficacy of SBRT and RFA are warranted.

Indexed as

meta-analysisradiofrequency ablation (RFA)Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)

Identifiers

PMID35282118
PMCPMC8848429
OpenAlexW4207076680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.