ArticleThoracic cancer2026
Association Between Treatment Sequencing and Overall Survival in Stage IV NSCLC With Brain Metastases: A National Cancer Database Study.
Article in Thoracic 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal sequencing of brain-directed radiation and systemic therapy in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases remains uncertain in the era of CNS-active systemic agents. We evaluated survival outcomes using national real-world data.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed between 2010 and 2022 with stage IV NSCLC and brain metastases in the National Cancer Database who received both brain-directed radiation and systemic therapy. Treatment sequence was classified as radiation-first or systemic-first based on initiation dates. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by treatment era (pre-2015 vs. 2015+), assessed associations with overall survival (OS), adjusting for demographic, clinical, tumor, and treatment factors. Propensity score matching and delayed-entry sensitivity analyses were performed to address confounding and immortal time bias.
resultsAmong 45 577 patients, 78.3% received radiation-first and 21.7% received systemic therapy first. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in OS (log-rank p = 0.624). In multivariable analysis, systemic-first sequencing was associated with a modest increase in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04-1.09), which was consistent in propensity-matched (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04-1.11) and delayed-entry analyses (aHR 1.09; 95% CI: 1.07-1.12). The use of systemic-first therapy increased over time. Established prognostic factors demonstrated larger effect sizes.
conclusionSystemic-first sequencing was associated with a modest increase in adjusted mortality; however, the effect size was small relative to established prognostic factors and likely influenced by residual confounding and selection bias. These findings support individualized, multidisciplinary treatment decisions rather than a uniform sequencing strategy.
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.