ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2025
Reducing radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: from Chinese expert consensus to practice.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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.
- Computed tomography-based deep learning prediction of radiation-induced functional decline after lung cancer radiotherapy.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Predictors of radiation pneumonitis after postoperative radiotherapy in completely resected pathologic stage III-N2 non-small cell lung cancer: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiation pneumonitis (RP) is a common but severe complication in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracic radiotherapy, significantly impacting patient survival and quality of life. Currently, standardized clinical protocols for predicting, preventing, and managing RP remain insufficiently applied, and the clinical effectiveness of consensus-driven management guidelines in reducing RP remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify whether implementing the Chinese expert consensus on RP could effectively decrease the incidence and severity of RP, and identify independent clinical risk factors. Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 616 lung cancer patients who underwent thoracic radiation therapy at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital between August 2020 and January 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on treatment periods relative to the implementation of consensus recommendations in August 2021: the pre-consensus group (treated from August 2020 to July 2021) and the post-consensus group (treated from August to January 2022). The consensus-driven interventions included three key strategies: strict limitation of planning target volume (PTV) margins, individualized lung dose constraints, and standardized steroid treatment protocols. RP incidence and severity were assessed over a 12-month follow-up according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v5.0). Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors for severe RP (SRP, grade ≥3). Results: The clinical characteristics were comparable between the pre- and post-consensus groups. After implementing consensus recommendations, the overall incidence of RP decreased significantly (67.3% Conclusions: Risk factor prevention and standardized treatment could decrease the occurrence of SRP. Clinicians should implement the recommendations in the RP management consensus in clinical practice. Special attention should be given to patients with identifiable risk factors such as pre-existing ILD, compromised lung function, high radiotherapy dose and low lymphocyte baseline counts, to improve patient prognosis and treatment safety.
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.