ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Oncologic outcomes and renal function preservation after stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation in stage I renal cell carcinoma.
Article 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. 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
Purpose: This study compared stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with biopsy-proven stage I renal cell carcinoma (RCC), focusing on oncologic outcomes and renal function outcomes. Methods: Patients with stage I RCC treated with CyberKnife-based SABR or percutaneous RFA between 2009 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Renal function was assessed using serial changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for baseline imbalances. Results: With a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 123 patients (SABR, n = 54; RFA, n = 69) were analyzed. Patients treated with SABR were significantly older (p = 0.002), and had larger tumors (p < 0.001), lower baseline eGFR (p = 0.002), and tumors more frequently located anteriorly (p = 0.008) and in close proximity to the renal sinus (p = 0.012). After IPTW, SABR demonstrated oncologic outcomes comparable to RFA, with 3-year freedom from local recurrence (98.8% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.733), disease-free survival (78.5% vs. 79.3%; p = 0.965), and overall survival (82.4% vs. 87.9%; p = 0.724). The annual rate of eGFR decline was similar between groups (-2.1 vs. -1.3 mL/min/1.73 m Conclusion: In patients with stage I RCC, SABR may be considered a local treatment option with oncologic and renal outcomes comparable to those of RFA.
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.