Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32119599›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2020

Ten-Year Update of a Randomized, Prospective Trial of Conventional Fractionated Versus Moderate Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Vladimir Avkshtol, Karen J Ruth, Eric A Ross, Mark A Hallman, Richard E Greenberg, Robert A Price, Brooke Leachman, Robert G Uzzo, Charlie Ma, David Chen and 6 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. The Proteogenomics of Prostate Cancer Radioresistance.Cancer research communications · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative evaluation of hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  15. Hypofractionation as a solution to radiotherapy access in latin america: expert perspective.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vladimir AvkshtolDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Karen J RuthDepartment of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Eric A RossDepartment of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Mark A HallmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Richard E GreenbergDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Robert A PriceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Brooke LeachmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Robert G UzzoDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Charlie MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
David ChenDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Daniel M GeynismanDivision of Genitourinary Oncology, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Mark L SobczakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Eddie ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Jessica K WongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Alan PollackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
Eric M HorwitzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI CHARNITA M. ZEIGLER-JOHNSON · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure.

methodsMen with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment.

resultsOverall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8%

conclusionH-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID32119599
PMCPMC7238488
OpenAlexW3009979109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.