Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33035622›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2021

Dose-response with stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics and biochemical control.

Rebecca G Levin-Epstein, Naomi Y Jiang, Xiaoyan Wang, Shrinivasa K Upadhyaya, Sean P Collins, Simeng Suy, Nima Aghdam, Constantine Mantz, Alan J Katz, Leszek Miszczyk and 27 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for distant metastases to the head and neck.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  5. Prognostic utility of biopsy-basedFrontiers in oncology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

37 authors.

Rebecca G Levin-EpsteinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Naomi Y JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Xiaoyan WangUCLA Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, USA.
Shrinivasa K UpadhyayaDepartment of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, USA.
Sean P CollinsDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, USA.
Simeng SuyDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, USA.
Nima AghdamDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, USA.
Constantine Mantz21st Century Oncology, Inc., Fort Myers, USA.
Alan J KatzFROS Radiation Oncology and CyberKnife Center, Flushing, USA.
Leszek MiszczykMaria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Poland.
Aleksandra NapieralskaMaria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Poland.
Agnieszka Namysl-KaletkaMaria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Poland.
Nicholas PrionasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, USA.
Hilary BagshawDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, USA.
Mark K BuyyounouskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, USA.
Minsong CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Nzhde AgazaryanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Audrey DangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, USA.
Ye YuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Patrick A KupelianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Nicholas G ZaorskyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, USA.
Daniel E SprattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Osama MohamadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Felix Y FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Brandon A MahalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, USA.
Paul C BoutrosDepartment of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Arun U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Jesus JuarezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
David ShabsovichDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Tommy JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Sartajdeep KahlonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Ankur PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Jay PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Nicholas G NickolsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, West Los Angeles Veterans Health Administration, USA.
Michael L SteinbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Donald B FullerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Genesis Healthcare, USA.
Amar U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Electronic address: aukishan@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Samuel Wheeler French · 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
UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Yvonne Yu-Hsuan Chen · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092131NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe optimal dose for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is still unknown. This study evaluated the dose-response relationships for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among 4 SBRT dose regimens. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn 1908 men with low-risk (50.0%), favorable intermediate-risk (30.9%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (19.1%) prostate cancer treated with prostate SBRT across 8 institutions from 2003 to 2018, we examined 4 regimens (35 Gy/5 fractions [35/5, n = 265, 13.4%], 36.25 Gy/5 fractions [36.25/5, n = 711, 37.3%], 40 Gy/5 fractions [40/5, n = 684, 35.8%], and 38 Gy/4 fractions [38/4, n = 257, 13.5%]). Between dose groups, we compared PSA decay slope, nadir PSA (nPSA), achievement of nPSA ≤0.2 and ≤0.5 ng/mL, and BCR-free survival (BCRFS).

resultsMedian follow-up was 72.3 months. Median nPSA was 0.01 ng/mL for 38/4, and 0.17-0.20 ng/mL for 5-fraction regimens (p < 0.0001). The 38/4 cohort demonstrated the steepest PSA decay slope and greater odds of nPSA ≤0.2 ng/mL (both p < 0.0001 vs. all other regimens). BCR occurred in 6.25%, 6.75%, 3.95%, and 8.95% of men treated with 35/5, 36.25/5, 40/5, and 38/4, respectively (p = 0.12), with the highest BCRFS after 40/5 (vs. 35/5 hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, p = 0.026; vs. 36.25/5 HR 0.42, p = 0.0005; vs. 38/4 HR 0.55, p = 0.037) including the entirety of follow-up, but not for 5-year BCRFS (≥93% for all regimens, p ≥ 0.21).

conclusionDose-escalation was associated with greater prostate ablation and PSA decay. Dose-escalation to 40/5, but not beyond, was associated with improved BCRFS. Biochemical control remains excellent, and prospective studies will provide clarity on the benefit of dose-escalation.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryHumansKineticsMaleProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific AntigenBiochemical controlDose-escalationDose–responseProstate cancerSBRTStereotactic body radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID33035622
PMCPMC7956167

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.