ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Uncovering the armpit of SBRT: An institutional experience with stereotactic radiation of axillary metastases.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Purpose/objectives: The growing use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in metastatic cancer has led to its use in varying anatomic locations. The objective of this study was to review our institutional SBRT experience for axillary metastases (AM), focusing on outcomes and process. Materials/methods: Patients treated with SBRT to AM from 2014 to 2022 were reviewed. Cumulative incidence functions were used to estimate the incidence of local failure (LF), with death as competing risk. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Univariate regression analysis examined predictors of LF. Results: We analyzed 37 patients with 39 AM who received SBRT. Patients were predominantly female (60 %) and elderly (median age: 72). Median follow-up was 14.6 months. Common primary cancers included breast (43 %), skin (19 %), and lung (14 %). Treatment indication included oligoprogression (46 %), oligometastases (35 %) and symptomatic progression (19 %). A minority had prior overlapping radiation (18 %) or surgery (11 %). Most had prior systemic therapy (70 %).Significant heterogeneity in planning technique was identified; a minority of patient received 4-D CT scans (46 %), MR-simulation (21 %), or contrast (10 %). Median dose was 40 Gy (interquartile range (IQR): 35-40) in 5 fractions, (BED Conclusion: Using SBRT for AM demonstrated low rates of toxicity and LF, and respectable symptom improvement. Variation in treatment delivery has prompted development of an institutional protocol to standardize technique and increase efficiency. Limited followup may limit detection of local failure and late toxicity.
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.