ArticleCancer management and research2024
A Comparison of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in Elderly Patients with Central or Peripheral Stage I-II (T1-3 N0 M0) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in elderly patients aged 65 or older with clinical stage I-II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), specifically examining the differences between centrally located lung tumors and peripherally located lung tumors. Methods: From April 2009 to January 2020, a total of 136 patients with 136 tumors (65 central, 71 peripheral; NSCLC) at an early stage (T1-3N0M0) were treated with SBRT at a single institution. Central/peripheral location was assessed retrospectively on planning CT scans. A propensity score matching analysis was utilized to compare the two groups. In addition, the prognosis and related toxicity were compared between the two study arms. Results: A total of 33 central tumors and 33 peripheral tumors were matched and analyzed. The results showed no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups. The 2-year OS was 71.88% (95% CI, 57.87%-89.27%) in the central lung cancer group, while it was 93.94% (95% CI, 86.14%-100.00%) in the peripheral lung cancer group (P=0.462). The 2-year PFS was 43.75% in the central lung cancer group, while it was 78.79% in the peripheral lung cancer group (P=0.279). Further subgroup analysis indicated that the location of peripheral tumor have a positive impact on OS in patients with adenocarcinoma. The occurrence of local failure, regional failure, or distant failure was comparable between central and peripheral tumors. There was no statistically significant difference in toxicity between the central and the peripheral tumor groups. Conclusion: The outcomes of SBRT for central tumors versus peripheral lung tumors in elderly patients with early-stage NSCLC were similar. SBRT demonstrated a similar level of safety in terms of toxicity for both central and peripheral lung tumors.
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.