Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30992160›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2020

Prostate-only Versus Whole-pelvis Radiation with or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

Kiri A Sandler, Ryan R Cook, Jay P Ciezki, Ashley E Ross, Mark M Pomerantz, Paul L Nguyen, Talha Shaikh, Phuoc T Tran, Richard G Stock, Gregory S Merrick and 31 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. SABR for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multilevel MRI-Based Dose Escalation Trial.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Weekly ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in localised prostate cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. The Roach Equation: Value of Old Clinical Tools in the Era of New Molecular Imaging.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

41 authors.

Kiri A SandlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ryan R CookDepartment of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jay P CiezkiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ashley E RossDepartment of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mark M PomerantzLank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Paul L NguyenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Talha ShaikhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Phuoc T TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Richard G StockDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, USA.
Gregory S MerrickSchiffler Cancer Center, Wheeling Hospital, Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV, USA.
David Jeffrey DemanesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Daniel E SprattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Eyad I Abu-IsaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Trude B WeddeDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Wolfgang LillebyDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Daniel J KraussOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Grace K ShawLank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ridwan AlamDepartment of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Chandana A ReddyDepartment of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Daniel Y SongDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Eric A KleinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Andrew J StephensonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jeffrey J TosoianDepartment of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John V HegdeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sun Mi YooDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ryan FianoSchiffler Cancer Center, Wheeling Hospital, Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV, USA.
Anthony V D'AmicoLank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Nicholas G NickolsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
William J AronsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ahmad SadeghiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Stephen C GrecoDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Curtiland DevilleDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Todd McNuttDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Theodore L DeWeeseDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Robert E ReiterDepartment of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jonathan W SaidDepartment of Pathology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael L SteinbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Eric M HorwitzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Patrick A KupelianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Christopher R KingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Amar U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: aukishan@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Melissa Fitzmaurice Neligan · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
UCLA SPORE IN PROSTATE CANCERP50CA092131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI REITER, ROBERT E · 2002 to 2023
$42.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases.

objectiveTo assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS).

conclusionsWPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyHemibody IrradiationAgedHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingPelvisProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateBrachytherapyGleason grade group 5Prostate cancerRadiation therapyWhole-pelvis irradiation

Identifiers

PMID30992160
PMCPMC7521828

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.