ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Efficacy and Safety of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Malignancies: The LITE-SABR Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- Efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Osteosarcoma Bone Metastases.Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology · 2026Article
- Tumor ablation in children.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- Risk-Stratified Radiotherapy in Pediatric Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) for Adolescent and Young Adult Malignancies.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Proton Beam Therapy in the Oligometastatic/Oligorecurrent Setting: Is There a Role? A Literature Review.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Limited data are currently available on clinical outcomes after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for pediatric and adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer. We aimed to perform a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis to characterize associated local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and toxicity after SBRT. Methods and Materials: Relevant studies were queried using a Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study Design (PICOS)/Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)/Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) selection criteria. Primary outcomes were 1-year and 2-year LC as well as incidence of acute and late grade 3 to 5 toxicities, with secondary outcomes of 1-year overall survival and 1-year PFS. Outcome effect sizes were estimated with weighted random effects meta-analyses. Mixed-effects weighted regression models were performed to examine potential correlations between biologically effective dose (BED Results: Across 9 published studies, we identified 142 pediatric and AYA patients with 217 lesions that were treated with SBRT. Estimated 1-year and 2-year LC rates were 83.5% (95% confidence interval, 70.9%-96.2%) and 74.0% (95% CI, 64.6%-83.4%), respectively, with an estimated acute and late grade 3 to 5 toxicity rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-5.4%; all grade 3). The estimated 1-year OS and PFS rates were 75.4% (95% CI, 54.5%-96.3%) and 27.1% (95% CI, 17.3%-37.0%), respectively. On meta-regression, higher BED Conclusions: SBRT provided durable LC for pediatric and AYA patients with cancer with minimal severe toxicities. Dose escalation may result in improved LC for sarcoma-predominant cohorts without a subsequent increase in toxicity. However, further investigations with patient-level data and prospective inquiries are indicated to better define the role of SBRT based on patient and tumor-specific characteristics.
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.