Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37545790›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023

External validation of

M C Tjong, S C Zhang, J O Gasho, K D Silos, C Gay, E M McKenzie, J Steers, D S Bitterman, A P Nikolova, A Nohria and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

14 authors.

M C TjongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
S C ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
J O GashoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
K D SilosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
C GayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
E M McKenzieDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
J SteersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
D S BittermanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
A P NikolovaDepartment of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
A NohriaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
U HoffmannCleerly Health Inc., Denver, CO, United States.
K D BrantleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
R H MakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
K M AtkinsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Major adverse cardiac events(MACE) are prevalent in patients with locally advanced-non-small cell lung cancer(LA-NSCLC) following radiotherapy(RT). The Patients and methods: Patients with LA-NSCLC treated with RT were included. CHyLL score was calculated:5.51CHD + 1.28HTN + 1.48ln(LADV15 + 1)-1.36CHD*ln(LADV15 + 1). CHyLL performance in predicting MACE was assessed and compared to mean heart dose(MHD) using Cox-proportional hazard(PH) analyses and Harrel's concordance(C)-indices. MACE and overall survival(OS) among low-vs high-risk groups(CHyLL < 5 vs ≥ 5) were compared. Results: In the external validation cohort(N = 102), the median age was 71 years and 55% were females. Most(n = 74,73%), had clinical Stage III disease and 35(34%) underwent surgery. CHyLL demonstrated good MACE prediction with C-index of 0.73(95% Confidence Interval(CI):0.58-0.89), while MHD did not (C-index = 0.46 (95% CI:0.30-0.62)). Per CHyLL, 32(31%) and 70(69%) patients were considered low-and high-risk for MACE, respectively. CHyLL consistently identified lower MACE rates in the low-vs high-risk group(log-rank p = 0.108):0 vs 8%(12 months),5 vs 16%(24 months),5 vs 16%(36 months),and 5 vs 19%(48 months) post-RT. In the pooled internal and external validation cohort(N = 303), MACE rates in low-vs high-risk groups were statistically significantly different(log-rank p = 0.01):1 vs 6%(12 months),3 vs 12%(24 months),6 vs 19%(36 months),and 6 vs 21%(48 months). Conclusions: CHyLL was externally validated and superior to MHD in predicting MACE. CHyLL has the potential to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from cardio-oncology optimization and to estimate personalized LADV15 constraints based on cardiac risk factors and acceptable MACE thresholds.

Identifiers

PMID37545790
PMCPMC10403724

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.