ArticleThoracic cancer2024
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based study.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 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.
- Target trial emulation in oncology: current use and future directions.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
- Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for clinical early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based study.Thoracic cancer · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) over conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been advocated, but is also debated in the literature.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we adopted a target trial emulation framework to identify eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2021 using the Taiwan Cancer Registry. In the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, whereas incidences of lung cancer mortality and radiation pulmonary toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Extensive supplementary analyses were also conducted.
resultsWe included 351 patients in the primary analysis and found that the OS was not significantly different between the SABR (n = 290) and CFRT (n = 61) groups. The propensity score weighting adjusted hazard ratio of death was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.53-1.07, p = 0.118). The secondary endpoints and supplementary analyses showed no significant differences.
conclusionsThe OS of patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR was not significantly different from that of patients treated with CFRT alone. The results of the relevant ongoing clinical trials are eagerly awaited.
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.