ArticleCureus2026
Intra-arterial Chemoperfusion for Lung Cancer Brain Metastases.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of palliative intra-arterial chemoperfusion (IAC) for patients diagnosed with recurrent or post-therapeutic progressive symptomatic lung cancer brain metastases (LCBM). Materials and methods A total of 10 patients (five women and five men; median age: 56 years (range: 40-80 years)) with recurrent or post-therapeutic LCBM were included. Chemotherapy consisted of either carmustine or a combination of mitomycin C, gemcitabine, and cisplatin. The radiological follow-up was performed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. The overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results All patients were treated with prior systemic therapy, and seven patients additionally received radiation therapy. A total of 37 sessions of IAC (3.7/patient) were performed. No major complications occurred. The mean sum of the longest diameter (SLD) was 4.5±1.2 cm for all patients prior to treatment. The mean SLD for patients with radiological follow-up was 3.9±2.1 cm after treatment. Four patients (4/8) developed progressive disease. Three patients (3/8) achieved stable disease, and one patient (1/8) showed complete response. None of the patients had partial response. Two patients (2/10) were not assessable due to loss of radiological imaging post-interventional. The mean OS time was 9.7 months (95% CI: 2.4-17.0). Conclusion Although IAC seems to be a safe approach for palliative patients with recurrent or post-therapeutic progressive symptomatic LCBM, further studies with a larger patient population are needed to confirm its 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.