Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39931260›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2025

Competing Risks and Their Impact on Treatment Efficacy Assessment in Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases: A Retrospective Study.

Isabella Gruber, Oliver Koelbl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Isabella GruberDepartment of Radiation Oncology University Hospital Regensburg Regensburg Bavaria Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7435-9337
Oliver KoelblDepartment of Radiation Oncology University Hospital Regensburg Regensburg Bavaria Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and competing risk analysis are two statistical approaches for analyzing time-to-event data. These methods differ in their treatment of competing events, such as deaths occurring before the event of interest, which can impact the interpretation of treatment efficacy in oncology. Methods: This retrospective study included 73 patients who underwent fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (six fractions of 5 Gy) for brain metastases at the University Hospital Regensburg between January 2017 and December 2021. The events of interest were the cumulative incidences of local failure within the planning target volume and the development of new brain metastases. Premature deaths occurring before the events of interest were treated as competing events. The complement of the KM method (1-KM), which censors patients who die prematurely, was compared to the cumulative incidence function (CIF), which accounts for the fact that patients who die without experiencing the event of interest are no longer at risk for that event. Results: The median follow-up was 56 months. The most common cancer types were non-small cell lung cancer ( Conclusion: This study highlights the impact of statistical method selection on clinical data interpretation and underscores the bias inherent in studies that fail to account for competing risks. Recognizing these differences is crucial for accurately assessing treatment outcomes.

Indexed as

brain metastasescompeting riskscumulative incidence functionfractionated stereotactic radiotherapyKaplan‐Meierlocal failurepremature deaths

Identifiers

PMID39931260
PMCPMC11808314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.