ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
Best supportive care in stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer: survival by reason for curative treatment omission in a real-world study population.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment, curative-intent therapy is withheld in patients deemed ineligible or preferring no treatment. Limited real-world data exist on overall and cancer-related survival outcomes in patients receiving primary best supportive care (BSC). The main aim of this study was to compare median overall survival (OS) by reason for BSC (patient preference versus other factors). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed overall and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) in patients with stage I-III NSCLC diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 in the Netherlands. Patients received primary BSC or curative treatment (surgery, radiotherapy or chemoradiation). The BSC cohort was categorized by main decisive factor: (I) patient preference; (II) insufficient performance status; or (III) relevant comorbidities. Survival data were compared using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. Results: Out of 1,895 patients, 234 (12%) received primary BSC, including 82 based on patient preference. Median OS was 5.9 months in the total BCS cohort and 9.6 months in the patient-preference cohort, compared to 54.1 months in the curative treatment cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.22; P<0.001]. Median LCSS was 8.9 and 16.4 months in the total BSC and patient-preference cohort, respectively, versus not reached in the curative treatment cohort (HR 0.15; 95% CI: 0.11-0.21; P<0.001). These survival differences remained significant after adjusting for relevant confounders. Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, primary BSC was provided in a substantial proportion of patients with stage I-III NSCLC, due to medical reasons or patient preference. In either case, omission of curative treatment resulted in significantly reduced survival outcomes. Our data offer targeted evidence to guide treatment decisions in the outpatient oncology clinic.
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.