Journal Article

Meta-analysis on SBRT and ablation for localised RCC

Wah, Tze Min, Ng, Helen Hoi-Lam, Zhong, Jim, Chan, Vinson Wai-Shun

2025

Overview

Adverse events also had double counting, with a revised meta-analysis showing an increased 5% (3–7%; 0%) rate of grade 3–4 adverse events, or 5·9% (23/393) in raw proportions. [...]the use of single-arm meta-analyses for comparison is primarily flawed. [...]Huang and colleagues’ suggestion that SBRT could be advantageous for treating larger RCCs is premature due to methodological flaws. Supplementary Material Supplementary appendix Reference in study by Huang et al (2025) 1 Example of centre included in IPDMA * Recruitment/inclusion period Funayama et al (2019) 33 University of Yamanashi (Kofu, Japan) August 2007–June 2016 Grub et al (2021) † 37 University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (Cleveland, OH, USA) Since May 2011 Ponsky et al (2015) 27 University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (Cleveland, OH, USA) June 2006–August 2011 Hannan et al (2023) 18 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (Dallas, TX, USA) September 2014–October 2019 Glicksman et al (2023) ‡ 17 Juravinski Cancer Centre (Hamilton, ON, Canada) 2012–20 Chang et al (2016) 28 Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada) Jan 1, 2012–April 1, 2015 Sun et al (2016) 29 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA, USA) May 2006–May 2011 Siva et al (2017) 31 Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) 2012–14 Table Studies included in meta-analysis that are potentially double counted from IPDMA

• Publisher: Elsevier Ltd,Elsevier Limited
• Subject: Cancer / Comparative studies / Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Medicine / Hospitals / Medical research / Meta-analysis / Radiation therapy