ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2025
Heterogeneity of study endpoints in stereotactic body radiation therapy studies for bone metastases: A systematic review.
Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review evaluated variability in study endpoints among stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) studies for bone metastases. Heterogeneity in endpoint definitions and reporting may hinder cross-study comparability and the establishment of consistent treatment protocols. Methods: A comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials identified prospective studies, including cohort studies, phase I/II trials, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published between 2014-01-01 and 2024-11-12. Studies were eligible if they: (1) included adult patients with bone metastases treated with SBRT, (2) were prospective, and (3) reported pre-defined clinical endpoints. Results: A total of 58 studies were included: eight cohort studies, 37 phase I/II trials, and 13 RCTs. Pain-related endpoints were the most frequently reported primary endpoints, with pain response reported in 28% (16 studies). Other primary endpoints included toxicities (22%, 13 studies), survival metrics (12%, seven studies), and local control (9%, five studies). Secondary endpoints varied, with survival-related endpoints reported in 60% (35 studies) and toxicity in 41% (24 studies). Endpoint selection differed by clinical scenario, reflecting distinct objectives such as symptom relief, local control, and progression-free survival. Variability in definitions for endpoints, particularly pain flare and vertebral compression fracture, along with inconsistent radiological response criteria, was noted. Conclusion: Considerable heterogeneity in endpoint selection, definitions, and measurement tools across SBRT reflects diverse clinical objectives. Consensus-driven standardisation of endpoints, response criteria, and follow-up schedules is essential to enhance comparability, facilitate evidence synthesis, and support integration of SBRT research findings into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41409181PMC12708003What 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.