Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29543933›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2018

Effect of Standard vs Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: The NRG Oncology RTOG 0126 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jeff M Michalski, Jennifer Moughan, James Purdy, Walter Bosch, Deborah W Bruner, Jean-Paul Bahary, Harold Lau, Marie Duclos, Matthew Parliament, Gerard Morton and 8 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 193 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
193citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
28.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT00033631 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase III Randomized Study Of High Dose 3D-CRT/IMRT Versus Standard Dose 3D-CRT/IMRT In Patients Treated For Localized Prostate Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorRadiation Therapy Oncology GroupRan2002 to 2022Enrolled1,534ConditionsProstate CancerArms70.2 Gy 3D-CRT/IMRT, 79.2 Gy 3D-CRT/IMRT
NCT06027892 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Two-fraction Versus Five-fraction Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Localized Low- and Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: SABR-Dual

TypeinterventionalSponsorRabin Medical CenterRan2022 to 2032Enrolled562ConditionsPROSTATE CANCERArmsTwo-fraction stereotactic radiotherapy, Five-fraction stereotactic radiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

193 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 349 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

133 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeff M MichalskiWashington University, St Louis, Missouri.
Jennifer MoughanNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
James PurdyUniversity of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento.
Walter BoschImaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group, St Louis, Missouri.
Deborah W BrunerEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jean-Paul BaharyCentre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Harold LauTom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Marie DuclosMcGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Matthew ParliamentCross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Gerard MortonToronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel HamstraUniversity of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.
Michael SeiderAkron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
Michael I LockLondon Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada.
Malti PatelMcMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Hiram GayWashington University, St Louis, Missouri.
Eric VigneaultL'Hotel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Kathryn WinterNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Howard SandlerCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
NRG Oncology · USWashington University in St. Louis · USAlberta Cancer Foundation · CACedars-Sinai Medical Center · USEmory University · USHôpital Notre-Dame · CAHôtel-Dieu de Québec · CAMcGill University · CAMcMaster University · CAOakland University · USSumma Akron City Hospital · USSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of California, Davis · 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 James J. Dignam, GREG YOTHERS · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
NRG Oncology NCORP Research Base-BIQSFPUG1CA189867 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI Deborah Watkins Bruner, Lisa A. Kachnic · 2014 to 2026
$140.5M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
RTOG Foreign AccrualsU10CA037422 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI BRUNER, DEBORAH WATKINS · 1985 to 2013
$30.4M
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY QA CENTERU24CA081647 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MICHALSKI, JEFF M. · 1999 to 2013
$22.8M
Washington University/ Siteman Cancer Center Lead Academic SiteU10CA180833 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, NANCY L, KOZOWER, BENJAMIN D · 2014 to 2018
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA021661NCI NIH HHS U10 CA037422NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180833NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS U24 CA081647NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Optimizing radiation therapy techniques for localized prostate cancer can affect patient outcomes. Dose escalation improves biochemical control, but no prior trials were powered to detect overall survival (OS) differences. Objective: To determine whether radiation dose escalation to 79.2 Gy compared with 70.2 Gy would improve OS and other outcomes in prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: The NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 randomized clinical trial randomized 1532 patients from 104 North American Radiation Therapy Oncology Group institutions March 2002 through August 2008. Men with stage cT1b to T2b, Gleason score 2 to 6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 or greater and less than 20 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA less than 15 received 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to OS measured from randomization to death due to any cause. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)/Phoenix definitions were used for biochemical failure. Acute (≤90 days of treatment start) and late radiation therapy toxic effects (>90 days) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and the RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme, respectively. Results: With a median follow-up of 8.4 (range, 0.02-13.0) years in 1499 patients (median [range] age, 71 [33-87] years; 70% had PSA <10 ng/mL, 84% Gleason score of 7, 57% T1 disease), there was no difference in OS between the 751 men in the 79.2-Gy arm and the 748 men in the 70.2-Gy arm. The 8-year rates of OS were 76% with 79.2 Gy and 75% with 70.2 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20; P = .98). The 8-year cumulative rates of distant metastases were 4% for the 79.2-Gy arm and 6% for the 70.2-Gy arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05). The ASTRO and Phoenix biochemical failure rates at 5 and 8 years were 31% and 20% with 79.2 Gy and 47% and 35% with 70.2 Gy, respectively (both P < .001; ASTRO: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; Phoenix: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65). The high-dose arm had a lower rate of salvage therapy use. The 5-year rates of late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal and/or genitourinary toxic effects were 21% and 12% with 79.2 Gy and 15% and 7% with 70.2 Gy (P = .006 [HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77] and P = .003 [HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite improvements in biochemical failure and distant metastases, dose escalation did not improve OS. High doses caused more late toxic effects but lower rates of salvage therapy. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00033631.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy DosageAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDose-Response Relationship, RadiationFollow-Up StudiesGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMale Urogenital DiseasesMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID29543933
PMCPMC5885160
OpenAlexW2791655860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.