ArticleClinical & experimental metastasis2024
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for pulmonary metastasis from sarcoma: a retrospective comparison with metastasectomy.
Article in Clinical & experimental metastasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs. Metastasectomy for Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Lung Metastases - A Systematic Review analyzing Safety and Efficacy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Efficacy of Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Lung Cancer and Irradiation Methods Based on Metastatic Site.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies report excellent local control (LC) and favorable toxicities of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for pulmonary metastasis (PM) from sarcoma. This study compared the LC and survival of SABR and metastasectomy for sarcoma PM. We analyzed the LC rates of 54 PMs treated with SABR between 2008 and 2022. For survival analysis, we compared 14 patients who received SABR as first-line treatment with 61 patients who underwent metastatectomy. For SABR-treated PMs, a median total dose of 55 Gy (range, 48-60) was administered over 3-10 fractions. Median follow-up for LC in SABR-treated PMs was 19.2 months (range, 0.8-124.0), and the 2-year LC rate was 92.2%. No patients experienced toxicities of grade 3 or higher. The median age of the patients in the survival analysis was 73 years (range, 42-83) in the SABR group and 54 years (range, 19-78) in the metastasectomy group (p < 0.001). PMs in the "gray zone" were more common in the SABR group (35.7%) than in the metastasectomy group (8.2%) (p = 0.029). The median follow-up for survival analysis was 44.8 months (interquartile range, 21.5-66.4). The 3-year rates of LC and overall survival were 92.3% and 57.3% in the SABR group and 89.2% and 75.9% in the metastasectomy group (p = 0.807, 0.224), respectively. The out-of-field intrapulmonary failure-free survival and extrapulmonary systemic failure-free survival rates at 3 years were not significantly different (p = 0.673, 0.386). SABR for sarcoma PM demonstrated excellent LC with acceptable toxicity. Survival rates of SABR were comparable to those of metastasectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39680241What 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.