ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
Stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy for treatment of ultra-central lung tumors: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MR-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
- Safety and feasibility of computed tomography-guided radiofrequency ablation for treating high-risk pulmonary nodules in postoperative lung cancer patients.The Journal of international medical research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become the standard treatment for medically inoperable peripherally and centrally located stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, ultra-central (UC) lung tumors pose unique challenges due to their proximity to vital structures, resulting in heightened risks of severe toxic effects. Recent studies have made significant strides in advancing SABR for these challenging cases. This review aims to clarify the definitions of UC lung lesions, examine various SABR dose regimens, assess constraints for critical normal structures, and evaluate outcomes related to local control, overall survival and toxicity profile following SABR for lung lesions. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and clinical trial information registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2006 to September 2024. Existing definitions of UC lung lesions, SABR dose regimens and their corresponding treatment outcomes following SABR, SABR-related toxicities and constraints for critical organs at risk, and potential strategies to improve the application of SABR in UC lung tumors were summarized and reviewed. Key Content and Findings: Prior studies have adopted different definitions of UC lung tumors, and a range of SABR regimens has been applied. While favorable local control rates have been reported, SABR-related toxicities-particularly massive hemoptysis and esophageal complications-restrict its use in UC patients. There is a need for further clarification of optimal SABR schemes and constraints for critical organs at risk. Emerging strategies, such as proton SABR and the combination of SABR with immunotherapy, show promising potential for improving treatment outcomes. Conclusions: SABR is emerging as a promising treatment for patients with UC lung lesions. There is an urgent need for a standardized definition of UC tumors, which will guide prospective studies aiming at determining optimal regimens and validating constraints for critical normal organs. Other strategies, including proton SABR and the combination of SABR with immunotherapy, show great promise and are garnering enormous attention.
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.