Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32900561›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2021

Tumor Control Probability Modeling and Systematic Review of the Literature of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Trevor J Royce, Panayiotis Mavroidis, Kyle Wang, Aaron D Falchook, Nathan C Sheets, Donald B Fuller, Sean P Collins, Issam El Naqa, Daniel Y Song, George X Ding and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Trevor J RoyceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: trevor_royce@med.unc.edu.
Panayiotis MavroidisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Kyle WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Aaron D FalchookMemorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida.
Nathan C SheetsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Donald B FullerDivision of Genesis Healthcare Partners Inc, Genesis CyberKnife, San Diego, California.
Sean P CollinsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Issam El NaqaMachine Learning Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Daniel Y SongDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
George X DingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Alan E NahumDepartment of Physics, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom and Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom.
Andrew JacksonDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York.
Jimm GrimmDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ellen YorkeDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York.
Ronald C ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USGeisinger Health System · USGenesis HealthCare · USGeorgetown University · USHenley College · GBJohns Hopkins University · USMemorial Healthcare System · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of Kansas · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Cancer Care Quality Training ProgramT32CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ETHAN M. BASCH, Stephanie Brooke Wheeler · 2018 to 2026
$3.0M
Optimal Decision Making in Radiotherapy Using Panomics AnalyticsR01CA233487 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI EL NAQA, ISSAM M. · 2019 to 2023
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA233487NCI NIH HHS T32 CA116339
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDose escalation improves localized prostate cancer disease control, and moderately hypofractionated external beam radiation is noninferior to conventional fractionation. The evolving treatment approach of ultrahypofractionation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) allows possible further biological dose escalation (biologically equivalent dose [BED]) and shortened treatment time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy/SBRT included a subgroup to study the prostate tumor control probability (TCP) with SBRT. We performed a systematic review of the available literature and created a dose-response TCP model for the endpoint of freedom from biochemical relapse. Results were stratified by prostate cancer risk group.

resultsTwenty-five published cohorts were identified for inclusion, with a total of 4821 patients (2235 with low-risk, 1894 with intermediate-risk, and 446 with high-risk disease, when reported) treated with a variety of dose/fractionation schemes, permitting dose-response modeling. Five studies had a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Dosing regimens ranged from 32 to 50 Gy in 4 to 5 fractions, with total BED (α/β = 1.5 Gy) between 183.1 and 383.3 Gy. At 5 years, we found that in patients with low-intermediate risk disease, an equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) of 71 Gy (31.7 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 90 Gy (36.1 Gy in 5 fractions) achieved a TCP of 95%. In patients with high-risk disease, an EQD2 of 97 Gy (37.6 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 90% and an EQD2 of 102 Gy (38.7 Gy in 5 fractions) can achieve a TCP of 95%.

conclusionsWe found significant variation in the published literature on target delineation, margins used, dose/fractionation, and treatment schedule. Despite this variation, TCP was excellent. Most prescription doses range from 35 to 40 Gy, delivered in 4 to 5 fractions. The literature did not provide detailed dose-volume data, and our dosimetric analysis was constrained to prescription doses. There are many areas in need of continued research as SBRT continues to evolve as a treatment modality for prostate cancer, including the durability of local control with longer follow-up across risk groups, the efficacy and safety of SBRT as a boost to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and the impact of incorporating novel imaging techniques into treatment planning.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, RadiationHumansLinear ModelsMaleModels, BiologicalModels, TheoreticalProbabilityProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation Dose HypofractionationRadiosurgeryRelative Biological EffectivenessRiskTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUrethra

Identifiers

PMID32900561
PMCPMC9445430
OpenAlexW3083558726

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.