ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Evaluation of efficacy and safety of external beam radiotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Article in Discover oncology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) who were either ineligible for or declined surgical resection. Each patient received either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), determined according to tumor size and anatomical location. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween July 2014 and March 2024, 169 patients with CRLM undergoing medical therapy were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics, resulting in 61 matched pairs (n = 122) for survival and toxicity analyses. Among all patients, 65 received EBRT—36 with SBRT and 29 with IMRT targeting liver metastases, and were included in the local control analysis.
resultsAfter PSM (n = 61 per group), patients treated with “EBRT + medical” therapy exhibited significantly higher survival than those only receiving medical therapy. The median OS was longer in the EBRT group (37.0 vs. 20.8 months, P < 0.001), and PFS was superior too (14.8 vs. 8.17 months, P = 0.001). Local control rates were 82.9% and 67.9% for SBRT at 1 and 2 years, respectively, and 75.5% and 50.6% for IMRT, respectively. EBRT was well tolerated; no radiation-induced liver disease occurred, and no significant differences in adverse event incidence were observed between the medication-only and combined-EBRT groups.
conclusionEBRT represents a safe and effective local treatment option for patients with unresectable CRLM. This study is the first to systematically evaluate IMRT in this population and the first PSM-based comparison of radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy, providing robust evidence for the independent therapeutic benefit of EBRT, however, the retrospective design and potential residual confounding should be considered when interpreting this finding.
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.