SynthesisClinical & experimental metastasis2026
Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for bone metastases: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical & experimental metastasis, 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
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) are widely used treatment options for the management of painful bone metastases. Randomized phase III trials have provided direct comparative evidence for SBRT and cEBRT; however, their results vary according to treatment regimen and clinical endpoint, supporting a broader quantitative synthesis of pain response, local control, retreatment, and safety outcomes. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from database inception through January 2026. Comparative clinical studies evaluating SBRT versus cEBRT for bone metastases were included. Outcomes assessed encompassed pain-related measures (change in Visual Analog Scale scores at 3 and 6 months; complete, partial, stable, and progressive pain response), opioid consumption at 3 and 6 months, radiologic local progression or treatment failure at 8 months, re-irradiation at 12 months, skeletal-related events (vertebral and non-vertebral compression fractures), spinal cord compression, treatment-related toxicity, and overall survival at 1 year. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models. Early pain reduction at 3 months, partial and stable pain response, and opioid consumption at 3 and 6 months were comparable between SBRT and cEBRT (all p > 0.05). However, SBRT demonstrated superior mid-term outcomes, with a significantly higher complete pain response at 6 months (RR = 1.43; p = 0.001) and a significantly lower rate of progressive pain response at 6 months (RR = 0.61; p = 0.03). SBRT was also associated with markedly improved local disease control, reflected by lower rates of radiologic local progression or treatment failure at 8 months (RR = 0.36; p < 0.001) and a substantially reduced need for re-irradiation at 12 months (RR = 0.13; p < 0.001). Rates of vertebral and non-vertebral compression fractures, spinal cord compression, treatment-related toxicity, and overall survival at 1 year did not differ significantly between treatment modalities. This meta-analysis demonstrates that both SBRT and cEBRT are safe and effective treatment options for patients with painful bone metastases. While early pain palliation and safety outcomes are comparable, SBRT provides superior durability of pain control, reduced pain progression, improved local tumor control, and a markedly lower need for re-irradiation. SBRT may be particularly advantageous for patients with longer expected survival, oligometastatic disease, or lesions at higher risk of progression, whereas cEBRT remains an effective and accessible option for rapid symptom palliation in patients with limited prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42860462What 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.