The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial
Abstract
BACKGROUND The oligometastatic paradigm suggests that some patients with a limited number of metastases might be cured if all lesions are eradicated. Evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this paradigm is scarce. We aimed to assess the effect of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on survival, oncological outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life in patients with a controlled primary tumour and one to five oligometastatic lesions. METHODS This randomised, open-label phase 2 study was done at 10 hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Australia. Patients aged 18 or older with a controlled primary tumour and one to five metastatic lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were eligible. After stratifying by the number of metastases (1-3 vs 4-5), we randomly assigned patients (1:2) to receive either palliative standard of care treatments alone (control group), or standard of care plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine. Neither patients nor physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We used a randomised phase 2 screening design with a two-sided α of 0·20 (wherein p<0·20 designates a positive trial). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446744. FINDINGS 99 patients were randomised between Feb 10, 2012, and Aug 30, 2016. Of 99 patients, 33 (33%) were assigned to the control group and 66 (67%) to the SABR group. Two (3%) patients in the SABR group did not receive allocated treatment and withdrew from the trial; two (6%) patients in the control group also withdrew from the trial. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19-54) in the control group versus 26 months (23-37) in the SABR group. Median overall survival was 28 months (95% CI 19-33) in the control group versus 41 months (26-not reached) in the SABR group (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·090). Adverse events of grade 2 or worse occurred in three (9%) of 33 controls and 19 (29%) of 66 patients in the SABR group (p=0·026), an absolute increase of 20% (95% CI 5-34). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (4·5%) of 66 patients after SABR, compared with none in the control group. INTERPRETATION SABR was associated with an improvement in overall survival, meeting the primary endpoint of this trial, but three (4·5%) of 66 patients in the SABR group had treatment-related death. Phase 3 trials are needed to conclusively show an overall survival benefit, and to determine the maximum number of metastatic lesions wherein SABR provides a benefit. FUNDING Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and London Regional Cancer Program Catalyst Grant.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hellman, S., & Weichselbaum, R. R. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1995.13.1.8 · Cited by 2,562
Gomez, D. R., Blumenschein, G. R., Lee, J. J., Hernandez, M., Ye, R., Camidge, D. R., Doebele, R. C., Skoulidis, F., Gaspar, L. E., Gibbons, D. L., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30532-0 · Cited by 1,086
Self-citationCardoso, F., Harbeck, N., Fallowfield, L., Kyriakides, S., & Senkus, E. (2012) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mds232 · Cited by 485
Cited by
ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma
Concin, N., Matias-Guiu, X., Vergote, I., Cibula, D., Mirza, M. R., Marnitz, S., Ledermann, J., Bosse, T., Chargari, C., Fagotti, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230 · Cited by 1,989
Ganesh, K., & Massagué, J. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01195-4 · Cited by 1,051
Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Parker, C., Castro, E., Fizazi, K., Heidenreich, A., Ost, P., Procopio, G., Tombal, B., & Gillessen, S. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011 · Cited by 977
Radiotherapy treatment for lung cancer: Current status and future directions
Vinod, S. K., & Hau, E. (2020) · Respirology · doi:10.1111/resp.13870 · Cited by 412
McBride, S., Sherman, E., Tsai, C. J., Baxi, S., Aghalar, J., Eng, J., Zhi, W. I., McFarland, D., Michel, L. S., Young, R., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.20.00290 · Cited by 402
Metadata
- Authors
- Palma, D. A., Olson, R., Harrow, S., Gaede, S., Louie, A. V., Haasbeek, C., Mulroy, L., Lock, M., Rodrigues, G. B., Yaremko, B. P., Schellenberg, D., Ahmad, B., Griffioen, G., Senthi, S., Swaminath, A., Kopek, N., Liu, M., Moore, K., Currie, S., Bauman, G. S., Warner, A., & Senan, S.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 393
- Issue
- 10185
- Pages
- 2051-2058
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2939770857
- Cited by
- 1,857
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 241.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32487-5
- The paper
- Palma, D. A., Olson, R., Harrow, S., Gaede, S., Louie, A. V., Haasbeek, C., Mulroy, L., Lock, M., Rodrigues, G. B., Yaremko, B. P., Schellenberg, D., Ahmad, B., Griffioen, G., Senthi, S., Swaminath, A., Kopek, N., Liu, M., Moore, K., Currie, S., . . . Senan, S. (2019). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32487-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.