ArticleCancers2022
Palliative Efficacy of High-Dose Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Non-Spine Bone Metastases: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for bone metastases: a meta-analysis.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2026Pooled it
- Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Automated treatment planning for brain and spinal metastases.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Palliative stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal and non-spinal bone metastases: combining tradition and innovation.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Initial Outcomes of Zap-X Stereotactic Radiosurgery for the Treatment of Spinal Tumors: A Case Series.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cancer Pain: Radiotherapy as a Double-Edged Sword.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Predicting the survival of patients with painful tumours treated with palliative radiotherapy: a secondary analysis using the 3-variable number-of-risk-factors model.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The superiority of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) over conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) in terms of pain palliation for bone metastases remains controversial. (2) Methods: This propensity score-matched study compared the overall pain response (OR) 3 months after radiotherapy among patients with painful (≥2 points on a 0-to-10 scale) non-spine bone metastases. Patients with lesions that were treated with SBRT or cEBRT and whose pain scores were evaluated 3 months after radiotherapy were included in this study. Pain response was evaluated according to the International Consensus Criteria. (3) Results: A total of 234 lesions (SBRT, n = 129; cEBRT, n = 105) were identified in our institutional database. To reduce the confounding effects, 162 patients were selected using a propensity score-matched analysis (n = 81 for each treatment). The OR rate at 3 months after SBRT was significantly higher than that after cEBRT (76.5% vs. 56.8%; p = 0.012). A noteworthy finding of our study is that the same trend was observed even after 6 months (75.9% vs. 50.0%; p = 0.011). The 1-year local failure rates after SBRT and cEBRT were 10.2% and 33.3% (p < 0.001), respectively. (4) Conclusions: Our findings suggest that SBRT is superior to cEBRT for pain palliation in patients with non-spine bone metastases.
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.