Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30528653›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2019

Toxicity and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Node Versus Prostate only Radiotherapy in Advanced Localised Prostate Cancer (PIVOTAL).

David Dearnaley, Clare L Griffin, Rebecca Lewis, Philip Mayles, Helen Mayles, Olivia F Naismith, Victoria Harris, Christopher D Scrase, John Staffurth, Isabel Syndikus and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01685190 (A Randomised Phase II Trial of Prostate and pelvIs Versus prOsTate Alone Treatment for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01685190 phase2unknown statusnot on this map

A Randomised Phase II Trial of Prostate and pelvIs Versus prOsTate Alone Treatment for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitute of Cancer Research, United KingdomRan2011 to 2019Enrolled124ConditionsProstate CancerArmsProstate alone IMRT, Prostate and pelvis IMRT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Management of high-risk prostate cancer in Spain: results from a national patterns of care survey.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors.

David DearnaleyThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; The Royal Marsden NHSFT, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: david.dearnaley@icr.ac.uk.
Clare L GriffinThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Rebecca LewisThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Philip MaylesClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, United Kingdom.
Helen MaylesClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, United Kingdom.
Olivia F NaismithThe Royal Marsden NHSFT, London, United Kingdom; UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, London, United Kingdom.
Victoria HarrisThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; The Royal Marsden NHSFT, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher D ScraseIpswich Hospital NHS Trust, Ipswich, United Kingdom.
John StaffurthDivision of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University and Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Isabel SyndikusClatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, United Kingdom.
Anjali ZarkarQueen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Daniel R FordQueen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Yvonne L RimmerAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom; West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St. Edmunds, United Kingdom.
Gail HoranAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom; West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St. Edmunds, United Kingdom.
Vincent KhooThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; The Royal Marsden NHSFT, London, United Kingdom.
John FrewFreeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Ramachandran VenkitaramanIpswich Hospital NHS Trust, Ipswich, United Kingdom.
Emma HallThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 10588Cancer Research UK 12518Cancer Research UK C1491/A9895Cancer Research UK C8262/A6411Cancer Research UK CRUK/10/022Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo establish the toxicity profile of high-dose pelvic lymph node intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess whether it is safely deliverable at multiple centers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this phase 2 noncomparative multicenter trial, 124 patients with locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer were randomized between prostate-only IMRT (PO) (74 Gy/37 fractions) and prostate and pelvic lymph node IMRT (P&P; 74 Gy/37 fractions to prostate, 60 Gy/37 fractions to pelvis). The primary endpoint was acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity at week 18, aiming to exclude a grade 2 or greater (G2+) toxicity-free rate of 80% in the P&P group. Key secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes and late toxicity.

resultsOne hundred twenty-four participants were randomized (62 PO, 62 P&P) from May 2011 to March 2013. Median follow-up was 37.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.4-38.9 months). Participants had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years) and median diagnostic prostate-specific androgen level of 21.6 ng/mL (IQR, 11.8-35.1 ng/mL). At week 18, G2+ lower GI toxicity-free rates were 59 of 61 (96.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 90.0-99.4) for the PO group and 59 of 62 (95.2%; 90% CI, 88.0-98.7) for the P&P group. Patients in both groups reported similarly low Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire symptoms and Vaizey incontinence scores. The largest difference occurred at week 6 with 4 of 61 (7%) and 16 of 61 (26%) PO and P&P patients, respectively, experiencing G2+ toxicity. At 2 years, the cumulative proportion of RTOG G2+ GI toxicity was 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.9%) for the PO group and 24.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-57.9%) for the P&P group; in addition, RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-14.9%) for the PO group and 5.6% (95% CI, 1.8%-16.7%) for the P&P group.

conclusionsPIVOTAL demonstrated that high-dose pelvic lymph node IMRT can be delivered at multiple centers with a modest side effect profile. Although safety data from the present study are encouraging, the impact of P&P IMRT on disease control remains to be established.

Indexed as

Lymphatic MetastasisRadiotherapy DosageAgedBiopsyHumansLymphatic IrradiationLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPelvisProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30528653
PMCPMC6361768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.