ArticleCancers2026
A Scoring System Contributing to the Detection of Radiation Pneumonitis in Elderly Patients with Lung Cancer-Results of the POLCAR Trial.
Article in Cancers, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesA symptom-based scoring system (0-9 points) for the identification of radiation pneumonitis was previously evaluated in lung cancer patients without age restrictions. A threshold of five points appeared optimal to detect pneumonitis. Since elderly patients have a higher pneumonitis risk, this threshold may not be valid for this group. The POLCAR trial evaluated performance and threshold selection in elderly patients.
methodsDiagnostic discrimination was assessed by receiver operating characteristic analysis. The areas under the curve (AUCs) and a null hypothesis that AUC equaled 0.7 were evaluated. Youden indices were used to identify candidate thresholds. In addition, the change from baseline and patient satisfaction were assessed. The dissatisfaction rate should be <20%.
resultsThirty new patients, plus 31 patients from another prospective trial with an almost identical design, qualified for analyses. The AUC for the pneumonitis score was 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-0.97). The highest Youden index (0.535) was observed for a threshold of four points. A threshold of five points led to a similar Youden index, a lower sensitivity, and higher specificity. An increase from the baseline by two points had a Youden index of 0.566 and a sensitivity of 100%, while an increase by three points had a Youden index of 0.550 and a specificity of 92.5%. Statistically superior discrimination for the change-from-baseline approach was not observed. The dissatisfaction rate was 5.4%.
conclusionsThe scoring system showed good discrimination and high acceptance by patients. A threshold of four points appeared appropriate use in routine screening for the early detection of pneumonitis, whereas the change from baseline was considered useful as an exploratory tool when baseline data were available. Since only eight pneumonitis events occurred, threshold estimates require external validation.
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.