Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy (CFRT) Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.
[BACKGROUND] Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has gained increasing interest in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), although its effectiveness has not been defined in rand
- 연구 설계 systematic review
APA
Montesi G, Miszczyk M, et al. (2026). Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy (CFRT) Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.. Cancers, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18060971
MLA
Montesi G, et al.. "Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy (CFRT) Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.." Cancers, vol. 18, no. 6, 2026.
PMID
41899573
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has gained increasing interest in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), although its effectiveness has not been defined in randomized trials. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical outcomes and treatment-related toxicity between SBRT and CFRT in LAPC.
[METHODS] This analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251128943). MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for comparative studies published between January 2015 and July 2025. Five retrospective studies comprising 768 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while risk ratios (RRs) were estimated for severe (grade ≥ 3) acute toxicity using random-effects models. Study quality was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool.
[RESULTS] No significant OS or PFS differences were observed between SBRT and CFRT. SBRT was associated with a lower incidence of severe acute toxicity. The overall risk of bias across studies was moderate.
[CONCLUSIONS] SBRT appears to achieve survival outcomes comparable to CFRT with a favorable acute toxicity profile in patients with LAPC. Nevertheless, the current evidence is limited by retrospective designs and heterogeneity, highlighting the need for prospective randomized trials to define the role of SBRT in this setting.
[METHODS] This analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251128943). MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for comparative studies published between January 2015 and July 2025. Five retrospective studies comprising 768 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while risk ratios (RRs) were estimated for severe (grade ≥ 3) acute toxicity using random-effects models. Study quality was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool.
[RESULTS] No significant OS or PFS differences were observed between SBRT and CFRT. SBRT was associated with a lower incidence of severe acute toxicity. The overall risk of bias across studies was moderate.
[CONCLUSIONS] SBRT appears to achieve survival outcomes comparable to CFRT with a favorable acute toxicity profile in patients with LAPC. Nevertheless, the current evidence is limited by retrospective designs and heterogeneity, highlighting the need for prospective randomized trials to define the role of SBRT in this setting.