ArticleBiomarker research2024
Comparison of proton therapy and photon therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.
Article in Biomarker research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Consolidation-to-Tumor Ratio on Prognosis After Radiation therapy for Lung Cancer With a Lesion Diameter of 3 cm or Less.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical and dosimetric risk factors for radiation pneumonitis after proton therapy in lung cancer patients: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Overlap and Metabolite Analysis in Spectroscopic MRI-Guided Proton Beam Therapy in Pediatric High-Grade Glioma.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of proton therapy (PT) in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) remains controversial, with insufficient evidence to determine its superiority over photon therapy (XRT). We conducted a systematic review of PT trials in ES-NSCLC, analyzing dosimetry, efficacy, and safety across to inform clinical decision-making. Our study showed that PT reduced lung and heart dosimetric parameters compared to XRT, with significant differences in lung V5, lung V10 and mean heart dose (MHD). In terms of efficacy, there were no significant differences in 1-year OS, 3-year OS and 3-year PFS between PT and XRT. For toxicity, no significant difference was observed in treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and radiation pneumonitis (RP). Single-arm analysis of PT found that V5, V10, V20 of lung and heart V5 were 13.4%, 11.3%, 7.9% and 0.7%, respectively. The mean lung dose and MHD were 4.15 Gy and 0.17 Gy, respectively. The single-arm pooled 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year OS rates for PT were 95.3%, 82.5%, 81.3% and 69.3%, respectively. PFS rate and local control rate at 3 years were 68.1% and 91.2%, respectively. The rates of TRAEs of grade ≥ 3 and grade ≥ 2 were 2.8% and 19.8%, respectively. The grade ≥ 2 RP occurred at a rate of 8.7%. In conclusion, PT had acceptable efficacy and safety, and was better at protecting organs at risk than XRT in ES-NSCLC. However, the survival and safety benefit of PT was not significant compared to XRT.
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.