A Systematic Review of Phase II/III Trials of Hypofractionated versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review evaluated whether curative intent hypofractionated radiation therapy improved survival (primary endpoint) as compared to standard conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Toxicity was also examined as a secondary endpoint. METHODS: Electronic bibliographic databases were searched from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 2024. Phase II and phase III trials were included to assess survival (primary outcome) and toxicity (secondary outcome) for newly diagnosed stage III NSCLC patients. RESULTS: = 811 participants), for a total of 1542 participants, were identified. The published trials were heterogeneous, with a wide variety of dose prescriptions. A wide range of survivals (median survival 13.6 months-42.5 months) and toxicities such as grade 3 or higher esophagitis (0-42%) and grade 3 or higher pneumonitis (0-18%) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is no level 1 evidence to date that suggests that any hypofractionated regimen (dose escalated or not) improves survival as compared to conventionally fractionated radiation. The published phase III trials have been powered for superiority (not equivalence) for the hypofractionated arm. Toxicity with hypofractionated regimens may be similar to conventionally fractionated regimens when normal tissue radiotherapy constraints are kept within tolerance limits. It is unclear how the use of systemic therapy may negatively affect radiation toxicity with hypofractionated radiation therapy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".