ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Robustness of Tumor Control Against Intrafraction Patient Motion in Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), patient motion during treatment may significantly impact the tumor control probability. In this study, we performed an analysis of patient outcomes to determine the clinical robustness of our lung SBRT protocols against patient motion and to assess the overall efficacy of our unique treatment delivery technique. Methods and Materials: Seventy-eight patients treated for 85 primary lung tumors or lung metastases using SBRT were included. An abdominal compression belt was used for respiratory motion management. Prescription doses were 50 to 70 Gy, delivered in 5 fractions. Our standard planning target volume expansion was 5.0 mm. Image guided positional corrections were performed halfway through treatment. Intrafraction shifts were recorded for analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to determine the 2-and 3-year local control (LC) and overall survival. Adverse effects were evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 6.0. Results: The median follow-up duration was 25 months (IQR, 13-40 months). Course-averaged intrafraction patient motion ranged from 1.2 to 8.2 mm (median, 3.5 mm; IQR, 2.5-4.0 mm). The 2-and 3-year LC (95% confidence interval) were 97.6% (83.9%-99.7%) and 94.0% (77.3%-98.5%), respectively. The 2-and 3-year overall survival were 77.3% (65.8%-87.8%) and 69.6% (56.8%-79.3%), respectively. The 2 local recurrences were observed at 22 and 31 months post-SBRT. They were associated with the 33rd largest and the smallest average repositioning shifts in the study. No adverse events of grade ≥3 were observed over the study interval. Conclusions: The excellent LC rates observed irrespective of patient positioning uncertainty were demonstrative of the clinical robustness of our SBRT workflow and may support future studies investigating planning target volume margin reduction. High efficacy and low incidence of adverse events support the implementation of this workflow in clinics developing SBRT programs. Similar study designs may be used to assess alternative SBRT workflows.
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.