ReviewMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2022
Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a review.
Review in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with survival in patients with spinal metastases from lung cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Emergency radiation therapy in modern-day practice: Now or never, or never again ?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Review
- Efficacy of Total En Bloc Spondylectomy versus Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Single Spinal Metastasis.Cancers · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in treating spinal metastases. Two reviewers performed independent literature searches of the PubMed database, searching literatures of the efficacy and safety of SBRT in metastatic spinal diseases. A total of 67 studies were included in the review. Regarding SBRT for de novo spinal metastases, the 1- and 2-year local control (LC) rates were 51-100% and 56-96%, respectively. The local failure rate was 10.5-47.5%, with most studies reporting a local failure rate of < 30%. The 1- and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 25.7-80% and 25-60.7%, respectively. The pain relief rate was 41.6-100%. In the postoperative scenario, the LC rate was 70-100%, and the local failure rate was 11.7-33%. Regarding the reirradiated setting, the 1-year LC rate was 71-83%, the local failure rate was 6.0-25.5%, and the 1-year OS rate was 28-68%. The pain relief rate was approximately 35.7-77%. Between studies on single- and multi-fraction SBRT, the 1- and 2-year LC rates with single-fraction SBRT were 71-95% and 70-96%, respectively; the 1- and 2-year OS rates with single-fraction SBRT were 43.5-46% and 43.5-49%, respectively. For the management of spinal metastases, it appears that regardless of the clinical scenario in which SBRT is applied, a high rate of LC is achieved, particularly with single-fraction SBRT, regardless of histology. Additionally, spinal SBRT can establish durable pain palliation with acceptable 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.