Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30836166›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2019

Dose Escalation for Prostate Adenocarcinoma: A Long-Term Update on the Outcomes of a Phase 3, Single Institution Randomized Clinical Trial.

Dario Pasalic, Deborah A Kuban, Pamela K Allen, Chad Tang, Shane M Mesko, Stephen R Grant, Alexander A Augustyn, Steven J Frank, Seungtaek Choi, Karen E Hoffman and 4 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized 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. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Dosimetry-Driven Personalization of Radiopharmaceutical Therapies: Evidence and Opportunities.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Dario PasalicDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Deborah A KubanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Pamela K AllenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Chad TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Shane M MeskoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Stephen R GrantDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Alexander A AugustynDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Steven J FrankDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Seungtaek ChoiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Karen E HoffmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Quynh-Nhu NguyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sean E McGuireDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Alan PollackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Mitchell S AnscherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: msanscher@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
X-RAY BEAM SPECTRA MEASUREMENTP01CA006294 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI ANG, K KIAN · 1985 to 2009
$11.0M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA006294NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the long-term outcomes for prostate adenocarcinoma when escalating radiation dose from 70 Gy to 78 Gy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1993 and 1998, 301 patients with biopsy-proven clinical stage T1b-T3 prostate adenocarcinoma, any prostate-specific antigen level, and any Gleason score were randomized to 70 Gy in 35 fractions versus 78 Gy in 39 fractions of photon radiation therapy using a 4-field box technique without hormone deprivation therapy. The primary outcome was powered to detect a 15% difference in biochemical or clinical failure. Secondary outcomes included survival, prostate cancer mortality, biochemical failure, local failure, nodal failure, distant failure, and secondary malignancy rates.

resultsWith a median follow-up of 14.3 years, the cumulative incidence of 15-year biochemical or clinical failure was 18.9% versus 12.0% in the 70 Gy versus 78 Gy arms, respectively (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.98; Fine-Gray P = .042). The 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastasis was 3.4% versus 1.1%, respectively (sHR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82; Fine-Gray P = .018). The 15-year cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 6.2% versus 3.2%, respectively, (sHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98; Fine-Gray P = .045). There were no differences in overall survival (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45; log rank P = .469) or other-cause survival (sHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.99-1.79; Fine-Gray P = .061). Salvage therapy was more common in the 70 Gy arm, at 38.7% versus 21.9% in the 78 Gy arm (P = .002). There was a 2.3% secondary solid malignancy rate (1 bladder, 6 rectal) within the radiation treatment field, which was not significantly different between treatment arms.

conclusionsDose escalation by 8 Gy (78 Gy vs 70 Gy) provided a sustained improvement in biochemical and clinical failure, which translated into lower salvage rates and improved prostate cancer-specific mortality, but not overall survival. Long-term follow-up demonstrated a low incidence of potential solid tumor secondary malignancies.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationAdenocarcinomaAgedAged, 80 and overFollow-Up StudiesHumansKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasms, Second PrimaryProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSalvage TherapyTime FactorsTreatment FailureKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID30836166
PMCPMC6579684

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.