Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27381895›Full record

Trial reportUrologic oncology2016

Acute and late urinary toxicity following radiation in men with an intact prostate gland or after a radical prostatectomy: A secondary analysis of RTOG 94-08 and 96-01.

Raymond H Mak, Daniel Hunt, Jason A Efstathiou, Niall M Heney, Christopher U Jones, Himu R Lukka, Jean-Paul Bahary, Malti Patel, Alexander Balogh, Abdenour Nabid and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Urologic oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Phase 1 Trial of SBRT to the Prostate Fossa After Prostatectomy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2019
    Article
  13. Review
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

17 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.

Raymond H MakHarvard Radiation Oncology Program, Dana Farber/Brigham and Women׳s/Cancer Center, Boston, MA.
Daniel HuntNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Jason A EfstathiouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Niall M HeneyDepartment of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Christopher U JonesSutter Cancer Research Consortium, Roseville, CA.
Himu R LukkaDivision of Radiation Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jean-Paul BaharyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CHUM-Hospital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Malti PatelDivision of Radiation Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Alexander BaloghDivision of Radiation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abdenour NabidDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Radiobiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke-Fleurimont, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Mark H LeibenhautSutter Cancer Research Consortium, Roseville, CA.
Daniel A HamstraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Health System-Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kevin S RoofSoutheast Cancer Control Consortium, Inc., CCOP, Winston-Salem, NC.
Robert Jeffrey LeeIntermountain Medical Center, Murray, UT.
Elizabeth M GoreDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Howard M SandlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
William U ShipleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: wshipley@partners.org.
Harvard University · USSutter Roseville Medical Center · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke · CADana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center · USFroedtert Hospital · USHamilton Health Sciences · CAHôpital Notre-Dame · CAIntermountain Medical Center · USJuravinski Cancer Centre · CAMichigan Medicine · USNRG Oncology · USSoutheast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium · US

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
RTOG Foreign AccrualU10CA021661 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI CURRAN, WALTER J. · 1985 to 2013
$150.3M
Statistics CoreU10CA180822 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Elaina Harper · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
UM LAPs- U10 GrantU10CA180801 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ZALUPSKI, MARK M · 2014 to 2018
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA021661NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180801NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo estimate the contribution of the prostate gland and prostatic urethral inflammation to urinary symptoms after radiation therapy for prostate cancer, we performed a secondary analysis of urinary toxicity after primary radiation to an intact prostate vs. postprostatectomy radiation to the prostatic fossa in protocols RTOG 94-08 and 96-01, respectively. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients randomized to the radiation-alone arms (without hormone therapy) of the 2 trials were evaluated, including 104 men receiving primary prostate radiation to 68.4Gy on RTOG 94-08 and 371 men receiving 64.8Gy to the prostatic fossa on RTOG 96-01. Acute and late urinary toxicity were scored prospectively by RTOG scales. Chi-square test/logistic regression and cumulative incidence approach/Fine-Gray regression model were used for analyses of acute and late toxicity, respectively.

resultsGrade≥2 acute urinary toxicity was significantly higher after primary prostatic radiation compared with postprostatectomy radiation (30.8% vs. 14.0%; P<0.001), but acute grade≥3 toxicity did not differ (3.8% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.54). After adjusting for age, primary radiation resulted in significantly higher grade≥2 acute urinary toxicity (odds ratio = 3.72; 95% CI: 1.65-8.37; P = 0.02). With median follow-up of 7.1 years, late urinary toxicity was not significantly different with primary vs. postprostatectomy radiation (5-year grade≥2: 16.7% vs. 18.3%; P = 0.65; grade≥3: 6.0% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.24).

conclusionsPrimary radiation to an intact prostate resulted in higher grade≥2 acute urinary toxicity than radiation to the prostatic fossa, with no difference in late urinary toxicity. Thus, a proportion of acute urinary toxicity in men with an intact prostate may be attributable to inflammation of the prostatic gland or urethra.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAgedAged, 80 and overFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapySeverity of Illness IndexTime FactorsUrethraUrologic DiseasesPostprostatectomy radiationPrimary prostate cancer radiation therapyUrinary toxicity

Identifiers

PMID27381895
PMCPMC5035191
OpenAlexW2470797207

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.