ArticleBiomedical engineering online2025
Concurrent vs. sequential chemoradiotherapy: a survival boost for lung cancer patients.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 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.
- Real-world outcomes of stage III non-small cell lung cancer in the durvalumab era: insights from a socioeconomically deprived population.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- The impact of sequential chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy on prognosis in adjuvant treatment after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the clinical efficacy, incidence of radiation pneumonitis, and impact on lung function of sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in the treatment of lung cancer.
methodFrom January 2020 to December 2022, 158 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were admitted to our hospital and chosen as the study subjects. Their clinical data were analyzed retrospectively and organized into a control group (n = 78, received SCRT) and an observation group (n = 80, received CCRT). Lesion sizes measured through CT scans were used to compare the clinical efficacy between the two groups. The study also compared the rates of adverse reactions, radiation pneumonitis, and lung function pre- and post-treatment, including forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC ratio. The comparison of serum tumor marker levels was conducted between two groups, with patients being observed over a 36-month period. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the changes in overall survival rate (OSR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between two groups of patients.
resultsFor the observation group, the remission rate was 90.00%, and for the control group, it was 74.36%. The control rates were 96.25% for the observation group and 89.74% for the control group. Significantly higher remission and control rates were observed in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The hemoglobin reduction grade 0 was 81.2% in the observation group, compared to 58.9% in the control group. In terms of leukopenia reduction (grades 0-III) and hemoglobin reduction (grades 0-II), the observation group outperformed the control group (P < 0.05). In the observation group, 25.00% of patients experienced radiation pneumonitis, a higher rate compared to the 8.97% in the control group (P < 0.05). Overall, the control group experienced more severe radiation-induced lung injury compared to the observation group, with 6.41% of cases reaching grade IV, unlike the 0.00% in the observation group. Grade II accounted for 1.28% in the control group, a figure significantly lower than the 21.25% in the observation group (P < 0.05). Post-treatment, the FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC values rose in both groups, with the observation group displaying significantly greater increases than the control group (P < 0.05). Also, after treatment, there was a decrease in CA125, SCC Ag, and CYFRA21-1 levels in both groups, with the observation group having significantly lower levels than the control group (P < 0.05). According to the Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis, the observation group achieved an OSR of 90.00%, which exceeded the 83.33% of the control group (P > 0.05). Furthermore, PFS and OS levels were elevated in the observation group relative to the control group (P < 0.05).
conclusionCCRT could optimize the treatment effect for NSCLC patients by improving lung function, reducing serum tumor marker levels, and prolonging survival without increasing toxicity. Nonetheless, the occurrence of radiation pneumonitis was somewhat above expectations, and the treatment plan should be tailored to the patient's specific circumstances in clinical practice.
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.