Measuring the Integration of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Plus Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Long-Term Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: For early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, surgery is the preferred approach in operable patients, whereas SABR is preferred for patients who are medically inoperable. The combination of neoadjuvant SABR followed by surgery was tested in the Measuring the Integration of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Plus Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (MISSILE) phase 2 trial. We report long-term outcomes beyond 5 years of follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients diagnosed with T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer with good performance status and adequate lung function were enrolled. Patients underwent neoadjuvant SABR followed by lobectomy/wedge resection. Forty enrolled patients received SABR, of which 36 patients proceeded to surgery. RESULTS: The pathologic and major complete response rates were 60% and 63%, respectively. Median follow-up was 6.6 years following surgery. Five-year overall, disease-free, and cancer-specific survival were 66.7% (95% CI, 48.8%-79.5%), 58.3% (95% CI, 40.7%-72.4%), and 76.4% (95% CI, 58.2%-87.4%), respectively. Five-year local, regional, and distant control were 93.5% (95% CI, 76.3%-98.4%), 80.1% (95% CI, 62.7%-90.0%), and 82.4% (95% CI, 64.9%-91.7%), respectively. After SABR and surgery, 16.7% (n = 6) of patients experienced related grade ≥3 adverse events, and there were no grade 5 events. CONCLUSIONS: The combined approach of SABR and surgery was safe and demonstrated reasonable long-term clinical outcomes, but similar to surgery alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".