ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs. Metastasectomy for Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Lung Metastases - A Systematic Review analyzing Safety and Efficacy.
Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [When and how are pulmonary metastases surgically treated in sarcomas?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary metastases (PM) develop in ∼ 30 % of sarcoma patients after curative therapy and confer poor prognosis. Surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are viable local ablative options, but direct comparative data is limited. This systematic review evaluates oncologic outcomes and toxicities of surgery versus SBRT for sarcoma-derived PM. Materials and methods: We systematically reviewed Medline and references for studies of sarcoma-PM treated with surgery or SBRT according to PRISMA, including publications up to 13th May 2025. Outcomes included local control (LC), progression-/disease-free survival (PFS/DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities, with OS data harmonized for pooled analysis. Results: Fifty-eight mostly retrospective studies comprising 4,787 patients were included. LC, PFS, and DFS were heterogeneously reported but generally similar. Three-year weighted median LC was 89.6 % (surgery, 2 studies) vs. 87.8 % (SBRT, 15 studies). Reporting on PFS/DFS was limited: Four-year-PFS 21 % (SBRT) vs. 28 % (surgery, 1 study each); 5-year-DFS 12 % (SBRT, 1 study) vs. 19 % (surgery, 9 studies). SBRT toxicities were generally ≤ CTCAE grade 3, while surgery occasionally caused grade 4-5 events. 5-year-OS showed no significant difference: 31.6 % for SBRT [95 %-CI 23.9-41.5 %], 37.8 % for surgery [95 %-CI 30-41.9 %]. Conclusion: Evidence indicates SBRT and surgery provide comparable outcomes for sarcoma- PM, with SBRT offering a more favorable toxicity profile. Though heterogeneous indications and incomplete reporting limit comparability, SBRT should not be viewed solely as fallback for surgically ineligible patients. Treatment should be individualized within a multidisciplinary expert team, integrating patient- and modality-specific factors. Well-designed prospective trials are needed to define relative safety and efficacy.
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.