ライフサイエンスコーパス: SBRT

1 SBRT and surgery, however, had identical CSS.

2 SBRT dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96; P = .02) and being

3 SBRT involves constructing very compact high-dose volume

4 SBRT is an effective primary or salvage treatment for me

5 SBRT reduced LR, RR, and LRR.

6 SBRT reduced the risk of local recurrence (LR), 4% versu

7 SBRT simulation, planning, and treatments were performed

8 SBRT treatment dose was 60 to 66 Gy total in three fract

9 SBRT was volumetrically prescribed as 48 (T1) or 60 (T2)

10 SBRT-SBRT was not cost-effective, at $558 679 per QALY g

11 The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients.

12 received radiotherapy in 70 HDVs (34 cRT; 36 SBRT) were included.

13 Eighty-four patients (41 SBRT/nivolumab and 43 SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab) receive

14 ghty-four patients (41 SBRT/nivolumab and 43 SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab) received at least one dose of

15 text] Gy to simulate the first fraction of a SBRT protocol.

16 s of the following treatment strategies: (a) SBRT as initial treatment followed by SBRT for local pro

17 Adding SBRT to GVAX/a-PD-1 shortens the distances from PD-1(+)C

18 70% and 53% after RFA and 74% and 46% after SBRT.

19 rsus 21 of 63 (33% [95% CI, 22 to 46]) after SBRT (P = .32).

20 2 (28%) of 582 patients (24.3 to 31.7) after SBRT (absolute difference 0.5%, 95% CI -4.7 to 5.7; p=0.

21 patients had complete pain alleviation after SBRT, suggesting that selected subgroups will benefit fr

22 r 100 patients reached 90 or more days after SBRT was performed October 1, 2021, with the sample size

23 96 (17%) of 581 patients had an event after SBRT (p=0.0011).

24 d 195 (34%) of 581 patients had events after SBRT (p=0.050).

25 n small studies, histological findings after SBRT for VT are unknown.

26 al complete response was more frequent after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (48.1% vs. 25% vs. 17.9

27 n opioid use during the first 6 months after SBRT (43 [28.9%] of 149 patients with strong opioid use

28 efore SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p<0.0001).

29 to the MDASI during the first 6 months after SBRT (p=0.00003), and significant reductions in a compos

30 elated to treatment (1.1 to 7.7 months after SBRT).

31 d other symptoms were evident 6 months after SBRT, along with satisfactory progression-free survival

32 ion occurred in one patient, 13 months after SBRT.

33 c antigen progression and/or 12 months after SBRT.

34 of 7.5 months (range, 7 to 13 months) after SBRT.

35 findings in human tissue in 4 patients after SBRT.

36 erienced similar overall pain response after SBRT compared with cEBRT.

37 Progression-free survival after SBRT was 80.5% (95% CI 72.9-86.1) at 1 year and 72.4% (6

38 F-FDG PET/CT was higher after cRT than after SBRT.

39 ain reduction from baseline to 4 weeks after SBRT was clinically meaningful (mean 3.4 [SD 2.9] on the

40 effectiveness ranged from 1 to 7 weeks after SBRT.

41 ial local control at one and two years after SBRT was 100% and 96%, respectively.

42 cal control rates at one and two years after SBRT were 95% and 92%, respectively.

43 pelvic nodes and 12.4% (23/186) nodes alone/SBRT.

44 Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there ap

45 reover, in pre-specified biomarker analyses, SBRT-induced increase of follicular helper T cells (Tfh)

46 g alpha-fetoprotein <200 ng/mL, Child A, and SBRT significantly reduced the risk of dropout.

47 tandard of care (standard-of-care group) and SBRT plus standard of care (SBRT group).

48 EBRT, use of moderate hypofractionation and SBRT regimens for definitive prostate cancer treatment h

49 3 (30.2%) patients in the SBRT/nivolumab and SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab groups, respectively.

50 Both RFA and SBRT are effective local treatment options for inoperabl

51 RFA and SBRT groups were similar with respect to number of lesio

52 lized HCC who were eligible for both RFA and SBRT to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following

53 cations occurred after 11% and 5% of RFA and SBRT treatments, respectively (P = .31).

54 the preferred strategy, because RFA-RFA and SBRT-RFA were less effective and more costly.

55 Combined RPT and SBRT may provide an efficient method to maximize the del

56 RPT and SBRT voxelwise dose maps were scaled (alpha/beta = 3 Gy;

57 to targeted therapy or immunotherapy around SBRT delivery; and potential adaptations of radiation do

58 9, 2023, 92 patients were randomly assigned (SBRT n = 47 and (177)Lu + SBRT n = 45), with 87 evaluabl

59 ule and a larger treated volume than PACE-B, SBRT and MHRT had similar rates of early RTOG toxicity.

60 Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation th

61 e BPI, increased from 39 of 149 (26%) before SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p<0.0001).

62 Symptoms were measured before SBRT and at several time points up to 6 months after tre

63 ar carcinoma (HCC) who are eligible for both SBRT and RFA.

64 gression (SBRT-RFA), and (d) RFA followed by SBRT for local progression (RFA-SBRT).

65 s: (a) SBRT as initial treatment followed by SBRT for local progression (SBRT-SBRT), (b) RFA followed

66 ergoing [(177)Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RPT followed by SBRT is feasible.

67 2 (6.8 GBq/cycle, 2 weeks apart) followed by SBRT to all lesions.

68 cles of [(177)Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RPT followed by SBRT.

69 by RFA for local progression (RFA-RFA), (c) SBRT followed by RFA for local progression (SBRT-RFA), a

70 -care group) and SBRT plus standard of care (SBRT group).

71 Results In the base case, SBRT-SBRT yielded the most QALYs (1.565) and cost $197 5

72 y, we show that AI can successfully classify SBRT-relevant clinical radiation dose levels at multiple

73 ittle information on the safety of combining SBRT with modern targeted therapy or immunotherapy and a

74 After erlotinib commencement, SBRT with equipotent fractionation was delivered to all

75 Conclusion SBRT for initial treatment of localized, inoperable HCC

76 alone (control arm) or AAP with concomitant SBRT to all the sites of disease (experimental arm).

77 onths, 9.6 months and 5.8 months in the CRT, SBRT and no RT subgroups, respectively (p = 0.060).

78 ndirect death, may help clinicians to design SBRT optimal schedules.

79 for safe combination of metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients

80 ity profiles of combined metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy.

81 mitigation strategies of metastases-directed SBRT combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy; a

82 phase I/II trial demonstrates that high-dose SBRT is safe and effective for the treatment of patients

83 damage and accounting for this effect during SBRT planning.

84 l mechanisms of acute cellular injury during SBRT for VT, which may have an antiarrhythmic effect bef

85 Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with simil

86 oups of 279 patients each who received early SBRT or delayed resection that were well-matched with re

87 y period, 570 (55%) patients underwent early SBRT and 475 (45%) underwent delayed wedge resection.

88 an the 5-year survival associated with early SBRT (31% [95% CI: 24%-37%]).

89 Base from 2004 to 2015 who underwent "early" SBRT (0-30 days after diagnosis) versus that of patients

90 adiation was commonly administered as either SBRT or IMRT.

91 e study period, 150 patients were evaluated (SBRT, n = 40; TACE, n = 59; HIFU, n = 51).

92 One gastrointestinal grade 1 adverse event (SBRT group) and one genitourinary grade 3 adverse event

93 rowth delay, but not local control following SBRT.

94 patients during the first 6 weeks following SBRT.

95 For SBRT treatment, a schedule of 30 Gy in three fractions e

96 SBRT/nivolumab and 37.2% (24.0 to 52.1) for SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab.

97 % vs 64.0% (HR, 0.76; 90% CI, 0.17-3.31) for SBRT vs SDRT, respectively.

98 The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT.

99 A were 83.6% and 80.2% v 97.4% and 83.8% for SBRT.

100 he hope of finding the ideal application for SBRT in the treatment arsenal.

101 Patients were prospectively enrolled for SBRT under a standardized protocol from July 2015 and co

102 edge versus 1.31 L and 10.14 mL/min/mmHg for SBRT (P = not significant).

103 Local control rates for SBRT were 99% (95% CI 97-100; I(2)=6%) at 1 year, 97% (9

104 74 years for wedge versus 4 and 78 years for SBRT (P < .01, P = .04).

105 oxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy.

106 ccrued into a dose-escalating, five-fraction SBRT schedule that ranged from 10 to 12 Gy/fraction (fx)

107 Five-fraction SBRT was noninferior to control radiotherapy with respec

108 d received at least one dose of fractionated SBRT, of whom 59 were evaluable for the primary endpoint

109 7 Gy/GBq), whereas the median lesion AD from SBRT was 28.1 Gy (range, 26.7-28.8 Gy).

110 ng that selected subgroups will benefit from SBRT.

111 However, the contribution from SBRT is unknown.

112 The time from SBRT to explant ranged from 12 to 250 days.

113 g spinal metastases (166 lesions) were given SBRT in a phase 1-2 study.

114 trial, compared with CT-guidance, MRI-guided SBRT significantly reduced both moderate acute physician

115 andomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 5 x 9 Gy SBRT (control arm) or 24 Gy SDRT (test arm).

116 However, SBRT is the preferred salvage therapy for local progress

117 However, SBRT was associated with a higher complete pain response

118 to receive SDRT or extreme hypofractionated SBRT.

119 One-year overall survival in SBRT metastatic sarcoma cohort was 47.6% (CI 34.3%-66.1%

120 the high radiation dose per fraction used in SBRT increases direct tumor cell killing, suggesting tha

121 We review current imaging modalities used in SBRT treatment planning and tumour assessment and review

122 ulature by higher doses per fraction used in SBRT.

123 I/II trial demonstrates that high-dose liver SBRT is safe and effective for the treatment of patients

124 randomly assigned (SBRT n = 47 and (177)Lu + SBRT n = 45), with 87 evaluable patients (SBRT n = 42 an

125 valuable patients (SBRT n = 42 and (177)Lu + SBRT n = 45).

126 CONCLUSION Both lung SBRT and wedge resection are reasonable treatment option

127 edge resection (n = 69) or image-guided lung SBRT (n = 58) from February 2003 through August 2008.

128 enously directly before (ie, within 180 min) SBRT (50, 55, or 60 Gy in five fractions, adaptively ass

129 operative risk patients with stage I NSCLC, SBRT is not recommended outside of a clinical trial.

130 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxici

131 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR,

132 Addition of SBRT did not improve efficacy of combined nivolumab and

133 ivolumab and ipilimumab with the addition of SBRT to at least one tumour site (24 Gy in three fractio

134 e of an abscopal effect with the addition of SBRT to nivolumab in unselected patients with metastatic

135 However, despite the widespread adoption of SBRT in the clinic, controversy surrounds the mechanism

136 evidence that the theoretical advantages of SBRT over other radiation therapies actually occur in th

137 ew patients with oligometastases, the aim of SBRT in this setting is to achieve local control and del

138 examination of tissue in the target area of SBRT was performed.

139 ed tomography-defined target volume areas of SBRT were correlated to the anatomic specimens.

140 We investigated the clinical benefit of SBRT for managing spinal metastases and reducing cancer-

141 up, grade 3 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were abdominal pain, acute cholangitis, pyrexia, in

142 , grade 3-4 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were acute kidney injury, increased blood alkaline

143 ip for tumor control with escalating dose of SBRT.

144 radiomic features after a single fraction of SBRT predicted local control in this exploratory cohort.

145 rity), which indicated the noninferiority of SBRT.

146 ility in predicting patients at high risk of SBRT-induced VCF.

147 ess the relative effectiveness and safety of SBRT versus other forms of external-beam radiation thera

148 e analogue within 1 week before the start of SBRT.

149 des a broad overview of the current state of SBRT for solid malignant tumors.

150 Two trials of SBRT for patients with active HCC unsuitable for standar

151 mendations are provided regarding the use of SBRT in high operative risk patients and for inoperative

152 However, data on the use of SBRT in patients with electrical storm (ES) is lacking.

153 Use of SBRT with erlotinib for unselected patients with stage I

154 r real-world analysis showed that the use of SBRT/pembrolizumab combination may play a role in a subs

155 ter-generated random number to SBRT alone or SBRT in combination with 6 months of ADT.

156 if they had one or more fractions of MHRT or SBRT, regardless of their allocated treatment.

157 breast cancer and 28 patients with NSCLC) or SBRT plus standard of care (n=55; 24 patients with breas

158 re and risk group to control radiotherapy or SBRT (36.25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks).

159 (60 Gy; 20 daily fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36.25 Gy; five daily or alternate day fractions; o

160 + SBRT n = 45), with 87 evaluable patients (SBRT n = 42 and (177)Lu + SBRT n = 45).

161 body radiotherapy followed by pembrolizumab (SBRT+P) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

162 every 2 weeks) or nivolumab (same dose) plus SBRT (9 Gy x 3) to 1 lesion.

163 up B (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab plus SBRT) in a 1:1 ratio.

164 gned to nivolumab (n = 30) or nivolumab plus SBRT (n = 32).

165 he context of transplant that received prior SBRT as part of an 11-patient compassionate use series a

166 SBRT followed by RFA for local progression (SBRT-RFA), and (d) RFA followed by SBRT for local progre

167 ment followed by SBRT for local progression (SBRT-SBRT), (b) RFA followed by RFA for local progressio

168 Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates

169 ed, validated, and tested using 141 prostate SBRT patients.

170 omes between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC.

171 (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used treatment options for relieving

172 However, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) dose is often heterogeneous, making it difficult t

173 toxicity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for centrally located NSCLC.

174 therapy via stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligorecurrent hormone-sensitive prostate canc

175 eatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung

176 e context of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer.

177 y (RPT) with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of oligometastatic castration-se

178 d therapy by stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in the

179 and included stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) af

180 ng (DS) with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and tumor ablation (with transarterial chemo- or

181 velopment of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), building on improvements in delivery achieved by

182 s, including stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and

183 delivered in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), trigger indirect mechanisms of cell death.

184 ients before stereotactic-body radiotherapy (SBRT), we found that the CNN segmentation algorithm (U-N

185 n (TACE) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), with an index symptom of pain or abdominal discom

186 after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

187 s undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

188 rts in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

189 treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

190 omes between lung stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and wedge resection for stage I non-small-cell lun

191 ents treated with stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT).

192 apy [cRT] or stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) were included.

193 One patient in group B did not receive SBRT due to concerns about excess toxicity.

194 andomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions over a period of 1 or 2 we

195 stemic chemotherapy and were able to receive SBRT and concurrent erlotinib until disease progression.

196 , Black patients were less likely to receive SBRT compared with conventional fractionation or moderat

197 we randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive SBRT to all lesions or two cycles of (177)Lu-PNT2002 (6.

198 608 patients received MHRT and 584 received SBRT, and thus were included in the study analysis.

199 (219 metastases) were analyzed and received SBRT+P.

200 Participants received SBRT to the primary tumour (50-54 Gy in three to five fr

201 A total of 154 patients received SBRT and 79 received CRT.

202 One patient who received SBRT for an ultracentral lesion (target overlapping prox

203 beneficiaries age >/= 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer fr

204 3%) of 584 patients (10.2 to 15.8) receiving SBRT (absolute difference 1.4%, 95% CI -2.5 to 5.2; p=0.

205 PR was observed in one patient receiving SBRT/nivolumab and lasted for 4.6 months.

206 ere treated with 16 of 24 patients receiving SBRT to more than one site.

207 eiving MHRT and four (1%) patients receiving SBRT.

208 iving MHRT and three (1%) patients receiving SBRT.

209 s 17.1% (8.0 to 30.6) for patients receiving SBRT/nivolumab and 37.2% (24.0 to 52.1) for SBRT/nivolum

210 e for anatomic lobectomy; of those receiving SBRT, 95% were medically inoperable, with 5% refusing su

211 en aged 18 years or older who were receiving SBRT for clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma at

212 Although these data are retrospective, SBRT appears to be a reasonable first-line treatment of

213 RFA-SBRT was the preferred strategy, because RFA-RFA and SBR

214 RFA-SBRT yielded 1.558 QALYs and cost $193 288.

215 y threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, RFA-SBRT was preferred in 65.8% of simulations.

216 followed by SBRT for local progression (RFA-SBRT).

217 at $558 679 per QALY gained relative to RFA-SBRT.

218 - 0.10 GBq) and an interim PSMA PET/CT scan, SBRT (27 Gy in 3 fractions) was delivered to all PSMA-av

219 In all evaluated scenarios, SBRT was preferred as salvage therapy for local progress

220 in a variety of organs and sites have shown SBRT to result in good outcomes in properly selected pat

221 ded 331 patients who had undergone 464 spine SBRT treatments from December 2007 through October 2019.

222 One and 3 fraction spine SBRT treatments were most commonly delivered.

223 ctices in assessing tumour response to spine SBRT.

224 registered clinical trials specific to spine SBRT.

225 grade 3 adverse event (left ureter stenosis, SBRT with ADT group) were reported, with no late toxicit

226 esults provide strong rationale for studying SBRT for HCC in a randomized trial.

227 alone (1-y OS of 0%) or Sorafenib with TARE/SBRT (2-y OS of 17%) at our center during the study peri

228 l toxicity profile, there is great hope that SBRT will find a prominent place in the treatment of met

229 We review published work showing that SBRT offers durable local control and the potential for

230 Many non-randomised studies have shown that SBRT for oligometastases is safe and effective, with loc

231 The SBRT dose range was 24 to 54 Gy in six fractions.

232 MTD was defined as the SBRT dose at which the probability of DLT was closest to

233 1.2-69.9) and 73.6 (64.7-75.9) years for the SBRT and SDRT arms, respectively.

234 However, the SBRT group had lower pretreatment Child-Pugh scores (P =

235 p versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference -1.3% [95% CI -3.9 to 1.

236 omization at 38 centers (433 patients in the SBRT group and 441 in the control radiotherapy group) be

237 nfidence interval [CI], 93.3 to 97.4) in the SBRT group and 94.6% (95% CI, 91.9 to 96.4) in the contr

238 Nine (16%) patients in the SBRT group had grade 2 or worse toxicities related to SB

239 d-of-care group and 34 (62%) patients in the SBRT group.

240 ere analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigne

241 Patients in the SBRT with ADT group received 6 months of ADT with a lute

242 in 10 (24.4%) and 13 (30.2%) patients in the SBRT/nivolumab and SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab groups, res

243 quality-of-life end points closely match the SBRT arm outcomes.

244 after 3 months and treated per protocol, the SBRT group had more complete responders (21/39, 54% [95%

245 f 47 measurable lesions recurring within the SBRT field.

246 l using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in this population.

247 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a novel treatment for refractory ventricular ta

248 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatme

249 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is derived from the techniques of stereotactic rad

250 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is generally a tumor-ablative radiation modality u

251 Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to manage spinal metastases,

252 on with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may help systemic agents delay relapse.

253 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) uses advanced technology to deliver a potent ablat

254 ness of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients

255 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), in which a high daily radiation dose is delivered

256 djuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), we found upregulation of fibrosis, extracellular

257 on with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

258 and many patients in need of local therapy, SBRT has found a place in the routine cancer-fighting ar

259 ates of local control are achieved with this SBRT regimen in medically inoperable patients with stage

260 tage I (<=5 cm) NSCLC were randomized 2:1 to SBRT of 48 Gy in 4 fractions (peripheral NSCLC) or 60 Gy

261 Patients were randomized 1:1 to SBRT with CT guidance (control arm) or MRI guidance.

262 randomly assigned to an intervention (52 to SBRT only and 53 to SBRT with ADT).

263 o an intervention (52 to SBRT only and 53 to SBRT with ADT).

264 re randomly assigned (601 to MHRT and 607 to SBRT).

265 tases in close proximity ( 5 cm) amenable to SBRT were eligible for this phase 1 study.

266 and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1.3% [95% CI -1.3 to 4.0]; p=0

267 -up of 22 months, the addition of (177)Lu to SBRT significantly improved PFS (17.6 months [95% CI 15

268 ed to treatment group allocation, but not to SBRT dose.

269 using a computer-generated random number to SBRT alone or SBRT in combination with 6 months of ADT.

270 RT alone, the addition of (177)Lu-PNT2002 to SBRT significantly improved PFS in patients with orHSPC

271 Among those randomized to SBRT, late grade 3 or 4 toxic effects occurred in 5 of 4

272 p had grade 2 or worse toxicities related to SBRT, including gastrointestinal reflux disease, pain ex

273 tment was reported as potentially related to SBRT.

274 d identify biomarkers predicting response to SBRT alone.

275 Irradiated tumor response to SBRT+P was associated with prolonged OS; 1-year OS was 7

276 Four patients underwent 5 total SBRT therapy sessions with 25-Gy single-fraction dose de

277 y and safety profiles of primary lung tumour SBRT followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherap

278 least 3 months or, alternatively, to undergo SBRT without delay.

279 s with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing SBRT and could be combined in an accurate predictive mod

280 ed with LC in patients with NSCLC undergoing SBRT and could be combined in an accurate predictive mod

281 rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation wit

282 Evidence for using SBRT in the primary renal cell carcinoma setting is grow

283 Prospective trials using SBRT have confirmed the efficacy of treatment in a varie

284 tion of patients selected for surgery versus SBRT (medically inoperable) at physician discretion, OS

285 dently associated with prolonged OS, as were SBRT (HR=0.42, 95% CI, 0.25-0.70; P =0.001), and resecti

286 However, to test whether SBRT really does improve progression-free survival, rand

287 controversy surrounds the mechanism by which SBRT enhances local control.

288 , P = .07), and LRR (5% v 29%, P = .03) with SBRT.

289 ffects was 26.9% (95% CI, 22.8 to 31.5) with SBRT and 18.3% (95% CI, 14.8 to 22.5) with control radio

290 ere was decreased FFLP for RFA compared with SBRT (HR, 3.35; P = .025).

291 Compared with SBRT alone, the addition of (177)Lu-PNT2002 to SBRT sign

292 o [HR], 1.54 per cm; P = .006), but not with SBRT (HR, 1.21 per cm; P = .617).

293 of 63 (37% [95% CI, 25 to 50]) treated with SBRT (P = .25).

294 atic NSCLC could be effectively treated with SBRT plus standard of care, leading to more than a four-

295 tients with 410 spinal segments treated with SBRT were included.

296 localised renal cell carcinoma treated with SBRT, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, or cr

297 n patients with 63 lesions were treated with SBRT.

298 herapy for lung cancer and were treated with SBRT.

299 rvival when compared to early treatment with SBRT.

300 files were demonstrated after treatment with SBRT/nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with refractory mP