SynthesisEye (London, England)2025
Efficacy and safety of robotic Cyberknife radiotherapy in uveal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review is aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic Cyberknife radiotherapy (CKRT) in the treatment of uveal melanoma (UM).
methodsClinical studies published in English that assessed the efficacy and safety of robotic CKRT in UM were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase from inception to July 2023. Studies reporting extraocular tumours or other radiosurgery approaches were excluded. Outcomes measured were tumour size, reflectivity, local tumour control rate, eye retention rate, survival rate, complication rate, recurrence rate, and metastasis rate.
resultsTen eligible articles involving 2370 patients with 2372 UMs were included in evidence synthesis. Meta-analysis showed 811 of 912 patients (0.89, 95% Cl: 0.86, 0.92) maintained local control for three years, and 1448 of 1724 patients (0.84, 95% Cl: 0.81, 0.88) preserved the eye in three years. During follow-up, 91% (0.91, 95% Cl: 0.85, 0.97) patients survived and 351 of 1720 patients (0.23, 95% Cl: 0.09, 0.37) involving 1722 eyes had tumour recurrence. In addition, 1376 patients (0.79, 95% Cl: 0.77, 0.82) preserved the eyeball in five years. Following treatment, approximately 20% of patients had radiation retinopathy (95% Cl: 0.13, 0.28), 19% developed glaucoma (95% Cl: 0.11, 0.28), and 22% experienced retinal detachment (95% Cl: 0.07, 0.36).
conclusionsCKRT is a viable, noninvasive RT for UM. The rate of local tumour control following treatment is comparable to that of other RT approaches, providing additional options based on the patient's condition.
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.