ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2025
Immunotherapy-Boosted Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy in Inoperable Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunological biomarkers for precision stereotactic body radiation therapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Implementation of an FMEA-guided quality-improvement workflow is associated with improved setup accuracy in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
opinion statementThe combination of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with immune checkpoint inhibitors, known as iSABR, marks a significant evolution in treating early-stage, inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Managing these cases requires a multidisciplinary approach involving radiation and medical oncologists. Clinical evidence from a meta-analysis of seven studies, including 462 patients, indicates that iSABR may offer better outcomes than SABR alone. The analysis showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-ups for iSABR compared to SABR. There was also a trend toward better overall survival (OS) with iSABR. Subgroup analyses highlighted enhanced 3-year PFS with programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors and doses per fraction ≥ 12.5 Gy. While iSABR slightly increased the risk of grade ≥ 3 adverse events like pneumonitis, fatigue, and skin reactions, these risks are generally manageable within a multidisciplinary treatment framework. In conclusion, iSABR demonstrates potential benefits and manageable risks in phase I/II trials for early-stage, inoperable NSCLC, with improved PFS and acceptable toxicity. These findings warrant further investigation in a larger phase III prospective randomized controlled trial to validate efficacy, optimize protocols, and establish long-term safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40338473What 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.