ArticleOncology2025
Hypo-Fractionated versus Standard Fractionation Radiotherapy in Frail and Elderly Patients with Central Nervous System Solitary Fibrous Tumors.
Article in Oncology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCentral nervous system solitary fibrous tumors (cSFTs) are rare, accounting for less than 1% of central nervous system tumors. Treatment guidelines are limited, especially for frail or elderly patients. Gross total resection followed by radiotherapy is recommended for higher grade cases, but the role of hypofractionated (HF) radiotherapy versus standard fractionation (SF) in this population remains unclear. This study evaluates outcomes of HF compared to SF in frail patients with cSFT.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 51 frail patients (age >65, Karnofsky performance status [KPS] <80) with cSFT treated from 2015 to 2023 was performed. Patients received either HF (21 patients) or SF (30 patients). Data extracted included demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes, radiation regimens, and oncologic outcomes. Descriptive and survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier methods, with multivariable analysis via Cox regression models to assess factors influencing local control and overall survival.
resultsThe median follow-up was 19 months (11-55 months). HF regimens varied from 35-48 Gy in 10-15 fractions, while SF was predominantly 54-60 Gy in 28-30 fractions. Local control was achieved in 76.2% of HF and 80% of SF patients (p = 0.154). No statistical difference in overall survival was observed between HF (18 months) and SF (18 months, p = 0.54). Higher tumor grade (HR = 3.5, p = 0.021) and incomplete resection (HR = 0.72, p = 0.035) negatively impacted local control. KPS ≤50 was associated with reduced survival (HR = 2.3, p = 0.035).
conclusionsHF radiotherapy appears feasible and safe for frail patients with cSFT, providing comparable outcomes to SF. The reduced treatment burden of HF may benefit patients with limited performance status. Further research is needed to guide optimal treatment approaches for this unique population. HF vs. SF radiotherapy in frail and elderly patients with cSFTs.
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.