ReviewCancers2024
The Dose/Fractionation Debate in Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies for Limited- and Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The role of radiotherapy in small cell lung cancer: a new paradigm for the radiation oncologist.Frontiers in oncology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To explore the most suitable dosage regimen for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) and provide references for clinical selection, strict inclusion criteria were applied, and studies were screened from Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. Subsequently, data on two-year overall survival rates and dosage regimens were collected, and scatter plots were constructed to provide a comprehensive perspective. The survival benefits of various dosage regimens were evaluated, and a linear quadratic equation was utilized to fit the relationship between the biologically effective dose (BED10) and the two-year overall survival rate. Among the five randomized controlled trials, the two-year overall survival rate of ConvTRT regimens with BED10 > 60 Gy (rough value) was only at or below the median of all ConvTRT regimens or all included study regimens, indicating that increasing the number and total dose of ConvTRT does not necessarily lead to better prognosis. In the exploration of HypoTRT regimens, there was a linear positive correlation between BED10 and the two-year overall survival rate (
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.