ArticleThoracic research and practice2024
Population-Based Analysis of Local Therapies for Large (>7 cm) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Tumors.
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of local treatment modalities in the management of large non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors using a nationwide population-based dataset. Patients with NSCLC tumors >7 cm that were cN0-1M0 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry from 2010 to 2015 were stratified by local management strategy (surgery, radiation therapy, no local treatment) and evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, Cox proportional-hazard methods, and propensity-matched analysis. A total of 3156 patients were identified, of which 1580 (50.1%) underwent surgical resection, 920 (29.2%) received radiation only, 655 (20.7%) received no local treatment. Overall, the 5-year survival of patients undergoing surgical resection was 40.7%, compared to 14.7% and 5.3% for the radiation only and no local treatment groups, respectively (P < .001). Surgery with or without radiation continued to have an independent association with improved survival in multivariable analysis (HR 0.23, P < .0001). Other factors associated with improved survival included younger age, negative nodal disease, and chemotherapy use. In propensity-matched sub-analyses, 5-year survival remained significantly better after surgery alone compared to radiation alone (38.5% vs. 13.6%, P < .001), while survival after radiation alone was better than no local treatment, though both were largely poor (12.4% vs. 7.5%, P < .001). Survival of patients with large NSCLC managed non-surgically is very poor. Despite the significant long-term survival benefit with surgical intervention, nearly half of the study cohort did not undergo surgery. Patients and clinicians can use these results to estimate specific potential benefits when considering possible treatment strategies for large NSCLC tumors.
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.