ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023
External validation of
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.
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.
- Cardiovascular risk-prediction models in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- Dose-volume predictors of cardiac adverse events after high-dose thoracic radiation therapy for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Heart Substructure Radiation Dose and Cardiac Outcomes: Contemporary Evidence and Actionable Opportunities: JACC CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review.JACC. CardioOncology · 2026Review
- Cardiac radiosensitivity in the era of thoracic chemoradiotherapy and immunotherapy: a scoping review.The Lancet. Oncology · 2026Article
- Development of heart-sparing VMAT radiotherapy technique incorporating heart substructures for advanced NSCLC patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Early cardio-oncology intervention in thoracic radiotherapy: prospective single-arm pilot study.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Baseline atrial volume indices and major adverse cardiac events following thoracic radiotherapy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Cardiac Substructure Radiation Dose and Associations With Tachyarrhythmia and Bradyarrhythmia After Lung Cancer Radiotherapy.JACC. CardioOncology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.