ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
A prospective outcomes and cost-effective analysis of surgery compared to stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate long-term outcomes, treatment costs, and quality of life associated with curative treatment of newly diagnosed stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), by comparing surgery to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).
methodsMulticenter consecutive prospective study of newly diagnosed stage I NSCLC patients independently assigned surgery or SBRT by a multidisciplinary tumor board, recruited prior to therapy initiation (n = 59). Outcomes included total hospital charges, toxicities, complications, readmissions, and patient satisfaction/ quality of life (FACT-L). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed the association of treatment type with dichotomous endpoints controlling for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and pre-treatment FACT-L; multiple linear regression was used for delta FACT-L.
resultsOf the 55 evaluable patients, 19 (35%) were males and 36 (65%) females. Thirty (55%) patients received SBRT and 25 (45%) received surgery with a mean age of 73 (57-85) and 67 (55-84) years, respectively. Median follow-up time was 514 days after SBRT and 648 days after surgery. The mean CCI for SBRT and surgery patients was 3.87 and 2.36, respectively. SBRT patients experienced significantly greater improvement in quality of life compared to surgery (delta FACT-L, 14, 95%CI, 2 to 26, p = 0.0232) after adjusting for baseline FACT-L. CCI but not age, treatment type, or baseline FACT-L was significantly associated with readmissions (OR, 1.42, 95%CI, 1.08 to 2.00, p = 0.0226). Interestingly, CCI was significantly lower (2.36 ± 1.66, 3.87 ± 2.84, p = 0.0418) yet total hospital charges were significantly greater ($251,759±$215,643, $129,238±$86,588, p = 0.0009) for patients receiving surgery verses SBRT.
conclusionsAlthough limitations include small sample size and absence of recurrence data, these analyses justify further evaluation of long-term outcomes, including cost and quality of life, to optimize treatment assignment of early stage NSCLC patients. These observations reveal that, despite targeting patients with higher CCI, SBRT is more cost-effective, with a greater improvement in quality of life than surgery.
trial registrationCentral Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained under expedited review and deemed minimal risk to patients (WCG Clinical IRB00000533 Study 1171593). All participating sites obtained local IRB approval before study initiation. Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to study entry.
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.