ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Elective nodal irradiation of high-risk regions is superior to involved field radiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective study.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeWhether to omit elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in thoracic radiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ENI in high-risk lymph node regions compared to involved field radiotherapy (IFRT). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a real-world retrospective study of LS-SCLC who received radical simultaneous dose-reduction radiotherapy (SDR-RT) and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy from January 2018 to June 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the target volume delineation method: the ENI group and the IFRT group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the observable potential confounding factors between the two groups. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS).
resultsA total of 540 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 196 (36.3%) received ENI and 344 (63.7%) received IFRT. After PSM, the clinical characteristics of both groups were balanced, including 183 patients each. The median OS was 26.7 months in the IFRT group versus 37.7 months in the ENI group (P = 0.007). The median PFS was 8.7 months in the IFRT group versus 12.2 months in the ENI group (P = 0.006). The median DMFS was 12.3 months and 28.6 months in the two groups (P = 0.004), respectively. The incidence of radiation pneumonia (P = 0.646) and esophagitis (P = 0.493) were similar between the two groups. The 1-year cumulative incidence rate of ENF was 13.9% (95% CI 8.8–18.9%) in the IFRT group and 2.7% (0.4–5.1%) in the ENI group (Gray’s p < 0.001).
conclusionENI did not significantly increase the rate of adverse reactions compared to IFRT, while effectively prolonging OS, PFS, and DMFS, and reducing the risk of ENF in patients with LS-SCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not 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.