Stereotactic body radiation therapy and thermal ablation for treatment of patients with pulmonary metastases: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare local tumor progression (LTP) and overall survival (OS) after image-guided thermal ablation (IGTA; microwave/radiofrequency ablation) versus stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with pulmonary metastases. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to capture studies that used IGTA or SBRT for patients with pulmonary metastases and studies that reported one, two, and threeyear LTP/OS were included. Patients with pulmonary metastases, and a subgroup with metastases from colorectal or renal cell carcinoma, or sarcoma (termed subgroup) which are considered more radioresistant, were analyzed. Single-arm pooled analyses, univariable, and multivariable random-effects meta-regressions were conducted to compare LTP and OS between IGTA and SBRT treated patients. RESULTS: Analyses included 3,264 IGTA and 5,486 SBRT patients. IGTA patients with pulmonary metastases had higher LTP than SBRT patients at one year, 13% and 9% respectively. At two years, the LTP for IGTA patients was 14% compared to 16% for SBRT patients. Three-year LTP remained lower for IGTA patients compared to SBRT patients (14% and 22% respectively). In the subgroup, SBRT patients had higher LTP than IGTA patients across all timepoints. OS was similar across analyses/subgroups in the single-arm pooled analyses. The multivariable analyses showed that SBRT was associated with significantly lower OS at one year; however nonsignificant differences were observed at years two and three. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pulmonary metastases, IGTA had lower LTP than SBRT at later timepoints. In patients with colorectal, renal cell carcinoma, or sarcoma pulmonary metastases, LTP was similar to overall LTP for IGTA, while it was higher for SBRT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".