Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25423899›Full record

ArticleCancer2015

A case-matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Penny Fang, Rosemarie Mick, Curtiland Deville, Stefan Both, Justin E Bekelman, John P Christodouleas, Thomas J Guzzo, Zelig Tochner, Stephen M Hahn, Neha Vapiwala

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evidence-based indications for proton therapy in adults determined using the GRADE approach.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for urological cancers.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Penny FangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rosemarie Mick
Curtiland Deville
Stefan Both
Justin E Bekelman
John P Christodouleas
Thomas J Guzzo
Zelig Tochner
Stephen M Hahn
Neha Vapiwala
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Susan M Domchek · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
Effectiveness of Radiotherapy for Prostate CancerK07CA163616 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BEKELMAN, JUSTIN · 2012 to 2016
$875k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA163616NCI NIH HHS K07-CA163616NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case-matched analysis.

methodsFrom 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray (Gy) relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) delivered with either PBT (181 patients) or IMRT (213 patients). Patients were case-matched on risk group, age, and prior gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) disorders, resulting in 94 matched pairs. Both exact matching (risk group) and nearest-neighbor matching (age, prior GI/GU disorders) were used. Residual confounding was adjusted for by using multivariable regression. Maximum acute and late GI/GU Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-graded toxicities were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively.

resultsBladder and rectum dosimetry variables were significantly lower for PBT versus IMRT (P ≤ .01). The median follow-up was 47 months (range, 5-65 months) for patients who received IMRT and 29 months (range, 5-50 months) for those who received PBT. On multivariable analysis, which exploited case matching and included direct adjustment for confounders and independent predictors, there were no statistically significant differences between IMRT and PBT in the risk of grade ≥ 2 acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-1.24; P = .09), grade ≥ 2 acute GU toxicity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32-1.51; P = .36), grade ≥ 2 late GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22-1.41; P = .22), and grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53-2.94; P = .62).

conclusionsIn this matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patients with PCa who received treatment with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose-fractionation schedules, the risks of acute and late GI/GU toxicities did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders and predictive factors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesFollow-Up StudiesGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansMaleMale Urogenital DiseasesMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProspective StudiesProstatic NeoplasmsProton Therapygastrointestinal toxicitygenitourinary toxicityintensity-modulated radiation therapyprostate cancerproton therapy

Identifiers

PMID25423899
PMCPMC4368478
OpenAlexW1492653833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.