ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023
Comparison of outcome after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of patients with metachronous lung versus primary lung cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly-stage lung cancer, primarily treated with surgery, often occur in poor surgical candidates (impaired respiratory function, prior thoracic surgery, severe comorbidities). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a non-invasive alternative that provides comparable local control. This technique is particularly relevant for surgically resectable metachronous lung cancer, in patients unable to undergo surgery.. The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients treated with SABR for stage I metachronous lung cancer (MLC) versus stage I primary lung cancer (PLC). PATIENTS AND
methods137 patients treated with SABR for stage I non-small cell lung cancer were retrospectively reviewed, of which 28 (20.4%) were MLC and 109 (79.6%) were PLC. Cohorts were evaluated for differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), metastasis-free survival, local control (LC), and toxicity.
resultsAfter SABR, patients treated for MLC have comparable median age (76.6 vs 78.6, p = 0.2), 3-year LC (83.6% vs. 72.6%, p = 0.2), PFS (68.7% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.9), and OS (78.6% vs. 52.1%, p = 0.9) as PLC, along with similar rates of total (54.1% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.6) and grade 3 + toxicity (3.7% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.9). Previous treatment of MLC patients was either surgery (21/28, 75%) or SABR (7/28, 25%). The median follow-up was 53 months.
conclusionSABR is a safe and effective approach for localized metachronous lung cancer.
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.