MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381547499 · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107281

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for Ultra-Central lung Tumors: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice guidelines

2023· review· en· W4381547499 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Yan, Alexander V. Louie, Rupesh Kotecha, Md Ashfaq Ahmed, Zhenwei Zhang, Matthias Gückenberger, Mi‐Sook Kim, Simon S. Lo, Marta Scorsetti, Alison Tree, Arjun Sahgal, Ben J. Slotman

Bibliographic record

VenueLung Cancer · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareCancer Research UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgeryMeta-analysisLung cancerRadiation therapyIncidence (geometry)PneumonitisDose fractionationOncologyInternal medicineRadiologyLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an effective and safe modality for early-stage lung cancer and lung metastases. However, tumors in an ultra-central location pose unique safety considerations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the current safety and efficacy data and provide practice recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS). METHODS: We performed a systematic review using PubMed and EMBASE databases of patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated with SBRT. Studies reporting local control (LC) and/or toxicity were included. Studies with <5 treated lesions, non-English language, re-irradiation, nodal tumors, or mixed outcomes in which ultra-central tumors could not be discerned were excluded. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for studies reporting relevant endpoints. Meta-regression was conducted to determine the effect of various covariates on the primary outcomes. RESULTS: 602 unique studies were identified of which 27 (one prospective observational, the remainder retrospective) were included, representing 1183 treated targets. All studies defined ultra-central as the planning target volume (PTV) overlapping the proximal bronchial tree (PBT). The most common dose fractionations were 50 Gy/5, 60 Gy/8, and 60 Gy/12 fractions. The pooled 1- and 2-year LC estimates were 92 % and 89 %, respectively. Meta-regression identified biological effective dose (BED10) as a significant predictor of 1-year LC. A total of 109 grade 3-4 toxicity events, with a pooled incidence of 6 %, were reported, most commonly pneumonitis. There were 73 treatment related deaths, with a pooled incidence of 4 %, with the most common being hemoptysis. Anticoagulation, interstitial lung disease, endobronchial tumor, and concomitant targeted therapies were observed risk factors for fatal toxicity events. CONCLUSION: SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors results in acceptable rates of local control, albeit with risks of severe toxicity. Caution should be taken for appropriate patient selection, consideration of concomitant therapies, and radiotherapy plan design.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.033
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations64
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLung CancerSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207