↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Stereotactic body radiotherapy or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus surgery for patients with T1-3N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Stereotactic body radiotherapy or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus surgery for patients with T1-3N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/ott.s138701
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ming Li, Xiaodong Yang, Yuhan Chen, Xinyu Yang, Xiyu Dai, Fenghao Sun, Li Zhang, Cheng Zhan, Mingxiang Feng, Qun Wang

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been reported to be a comparable alternative therapy to surgery for patients with T1-3N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it has not been clarified whether SBRT/SABR is as effective as surgery. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy of SBRT/SABR and surgery in the treatment of T1-3N0M0 NSCLC. An electronic and a manual search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Wiley Online Library in all published data before January 1, 2017. The pooled data included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and locoregional/distant recurrence rate. Hazard ratio (HR) of OS (SBRT/SABR vs surgery) was used as the measure of differential effects. Fifteen studies, including 7,810 patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC, 2,986 patients in the SBRT/SABR group, and 4,824 patients in the surgery group, were pooled for the meta-analysis. Results showed that patients with SBRT/SABR had a significantly worse 5-year survival rate (HR =1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 1.61; P<0.01), and RFS rate (HR =1.84; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.68; P=0.002). Meanwhile, the locoregional recurrence rate (HR =1.17; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.98; P=0.57), and distant recurrence rate (HR =1.36; 95% CI: 0.77, 2.39; P=0.29) were also lower in the surgery group although results were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, SBRT/SABR had a significantly lower rate of 5-year survival (HR =1.46; 95% CI: 1.03, 2.06; P=0.03) compared with lobectomy. Similarly, significant differences of OS exist in comparisons of SBRT/SABR versus sublobectomy (HR =1.40; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.80; P=0.008), and wedge resection (HR =1.48; 95% CI: 1.01, 2.16; P=0.04). Surgery, both lobectomy and sublobectomy, might be superior to SBRT/SABR with regard to survival of patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC. Patients with T1-3N0M0 NSCLC should preferably be treated surgically prior to SBRT/SABR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Other 5 15%
Student > Master 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,962,193
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#431
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,125
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#11
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.