MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379141408 · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107259

Stereotactic body radiation therapy and thermal ablation for treatment of NSCLC: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4379141408 on OpenAlex
Paul F. Laeseke, Calvin S.H. Ng, Nicole Ferko, Andrada Naghi, George Wright, Y. Zhang, Alyshia Laidlaw, Iftekhar Kalsekar, Balaji Laxmanan, Sudip Kumar Ghosh, Meijia Zhou, Philippe Szapary, Michael A. Pritchett

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLung Cancer · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)
FundersAstraZenecaJohnson and JohnsonPfizer
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRadiofrequency ablationMicrowave ablationLung cancerRadiosurgeryStage (stratigraphy)Subgroup analysisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialOncologySystematic reviewRadiation therapynon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)RadiologyNuclear medicineAblationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the standard of care for inoperable early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Use of image guided thermal ablation (IGTA; including microwave ablation [MWA] and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) has increased in NSCLC, however there are no studies comparing all three. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of IGTA (including MWA and RFA) and SBRT for the treatment of NSCLC. METHODS: Published literature databases were systematically searched for studies assessing MWA, RFA, or SBRT. Local tumor progression (LTP), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed with single-arm pooled analyses and meta-regressions in NSCLC patients and a stage IA subgroup. Study quality was assessed with a modified methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool. RESULTS: Forty IGTA study-arms (2,691 patients) and 215 SBRT study-arms (54,789 patients) were identified. LTP was lowest after SBRT at one and two years in single-arm pooled analyses (4% and 9% vs. 11% and 18%) and at one year in meta-regressions when compared to IGTA (OR = 0.2, 95%CI = 0.07-0.63). MWA patients had the highest DFS of all treatments in single-arm pooled analyses. In meta-regressions at two and three-years, DFS was significantly lower for RFA compared to MWA (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.12-0.58; OR = 0.33, 95%CI = 0.16-0.66, respectively). OS was similar across modalities, timepoints, and analyses. Older age, male patients, larger tumors, retrospective studies, and non-Asian study region were also predictors of worse clinical outcomes. In high-quality studies (MINORS score ≥ 7), MWA patients had better clinical outcomes than the overall analysis. Stage IA MWA patients had lower LTP, higher OS, and generally lower DFS, compared to the main analysis of all NSCLC patients. CONCLUSIONS: NSCLC patients had comparable outcomes after SBRT and MWA, which were better than those with RFA.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it