The role of stereotactic body radiation therapy in the management of pulmonary metastases: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While pulmonary metastases are often managed through metastasectomies, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a relatively novel treatment that has shown promise for this disease. This review aimed to summarize the current findings of SBRT in the treatment of pulmonary metastases. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for articles that examined the use of SBRT for patients with pulmonary metastases. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease‐free survival, and progression‐free survival. Results were pooled where appropriate. Risk of bias was assessed through the Methodological Index for Non‐Randomized Studies tool. After screening, 13 studies with 545 patients conducted between 2006 and 2020 were included in this review. Primary tumor localizations included gastrointestinal, pulmonary, and bone, among others. Pooled overall survival at 1 year was 81%, 41% at 3 years, 34% at 4 years, and 26% at 5 years. Pooled progression‐free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 60%, 41%, and 31% respectively. Local control at 1, 2, and 3 years were 90%, 79%, and 77%, respectively. Preliminary evidence regarding SBRT for treatment of pulmonary metastases shows promising benefits for overall survival and local control. Further high‐quality prospective trials are required to investigate the effectiveness and treatment‐related adverse effects of SBRT, and should compare it with metastasectomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".