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 OpenAlexaff
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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.033
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLung CancerSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207