ArticleBMC cancer2026
Comparison of prognosis between patients undergoing surgical resection and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for early-stage lung cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection is the standard curative treatment for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whereas stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an established alternative for patients who are medically inoperable or decline surgery. However, comparative long-term oncologic outcomes remain debated. This study compared outcomes of surgery and SBRT in patients with clinical stage I NSCLC.
methodsThis retrospective two-center cohort study included 157 patients treated between 2010 and 2022 (93 surgery, 64 SBRT). The surgical cohort included a substantial proportion of thoracotomy procedures, reflecting routine clinical practice. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local control (LC), and locoregional control (LRC) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for baseline differences. Because histological confirmation was unavailable in a subset of SBRT patients, a sensitivity analysis restricted to histologically confirmed NSCLC cases (n = 143) was performed.
resultsMedian follow-up was 57 months in the surgical group and 48 months in the SBRT group. Median OS, DFS, LC, and LRC numerically favored surgery, although no statistically significant differences were observed (p > 0.05). Five-year OS was 58% after surgery and 49% after SBRT. The SBRT cohort had a higher burden of comorbidities (93% vs. 56%). Distant metastasis occurred more frequently after SBRT (28.1% vs. 15.1%, p = 0.006). Sensitivity analysis of histologically confirmed cases yielded results consistent with the primary analysis.
conclusionsSurgical resection and SBRT demonstrated comparable oncologic outcomes in this real-world cohort of stage I NSCLC. SBRT remains an effective option for medically inoperable patients, whereas surgery offers the advantage of pathological staging in eligible individuals. Consistent findings in the histologically confirmed cohort support the robustness of these results. Prospective randomized trials are needed to further define optimal management.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.