Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Medical Research Council (MRC) randomised trial of palliative radiotherapy with two fractions or a single fraction in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status

Open access
Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party*, Bleehen, NM, Girling, DJ, Machin, D, Stephens, RJ·1992·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Two policies of palliative thoracic radiotherapy for NSCLC have been compared in a randomised multicentre controlled trial aimed at simplifying the palliative treatment of patients with poor performance status. A total of 235 patients were entered. They had inoperable, microscopically confirmed disease, too advanced for 'curative' radiotherapy. Their main symptoms were related to the primary intrathoracic tumour even if metastases were present, and they had a poor performance status. Patients were allocated at random to regimens of either 17 Gy given in two fractions of 8.5 Gy 1 week apart (F2 regimen, 117 patients), or a single fraction of 10 Gy (F1 regimen, 118 patients). Two patients (one in each group) were excluded from all analyses because they were found to have had previously treated malignant disease and had been admitted in error. On admission, 95% of the 233 eligible patients had cough, 47% haemoptysis, 59% chest pain, 64% anorexia, and 16% dysphagia. As assessed by the clinicians, these symptoms were palliated in high proportions of patients, ranging in the F2 group from 48% for cough to 75% for haemoptysis, and in the F1 group from 55% for anorexia to 72% for haemoptysis and chest pain. For all five symptoms the median duration of palliation was 50% or more of survival. All these results were similar in the two treatment groups. In contrast, on daily assessment by the patients using a diary card, those treated with the F2 regimen experienced substantially more dysphagia, which was recorded in 56% of the patients compared with 23% in the F1 group (difference 33%: 95% confidence interval 17-48%). The median survival from randomisation was 100 days in the F2 group and 122 days in the F1 group. The F1 regimen, as it requires only a single attendance for treatment, is recommended as a palliative regimen for patients with inoperable NSCLC and a poor performance status.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.1992.196

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party*, Bleehen, N., Girling, D., Machin, D., & Stephens, R.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
1992-06
Volume
65
Issue
6
Pages
934-941
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2077210792
Cited by
274
References
3
FWCI
10.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: A Medical Research Council (MRC) randomised trial of palliative radiotherapy with two fractions or a single fraction in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1992.196
The paper
Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party*, Bleehen, N., Girling, D., Machin, D., & Stephens, R. (1992). A Medical Research Council (MRC) randomised trial of palliative radiotherapy with two fractions or a single fraction in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1992.196

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.