Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33364450›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2021

Determining the safety of ultrafocal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: A toxicity assessment of 150 patients.

Marieke van Son, Max Peters, Marinus Moerland, Sandrine van de Pol, Wietse Eppinga, Jan Lagendijk, Jochem van der Voort van Zyp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Marieke van SonDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Max PetersDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marinus MoerlandDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Sandrine van de PolDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Wietse EppingaDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan LagendijkDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jochem van der Voort van ZypDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeLocal re-treatment of radiorecurrent prostate cancer is potentially curative. However, the increased risk of severe toxicity may outweigh the opportunity of cancer control. This study aims to evaluate treatment-related toxicity from ultrafocal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and to investigate potential risk factors. MATERIALS AND

methodsToxicity data from 150 treated patients (July 2013-November 2019) was collected from a prospective registry. The treatment aim was to deliver a single dose of 19 Gy to the recurrent lesion as identified on multiparametric MRI and PET-CT. Treating physicians graded genitourinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity and erectile dysfunction (ED) using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.0, at baseline and during follow-up. Domains with substantial (≥10%) new-onset grade ≥ 2 toxicity were further evaluated using mixed effects logistic regression to find potential risk factors.

resultsMedian follow-up time was 20 months (IQR 12-31). Over time, new-onset grade 2 and 3 toxicity was recorded in 41% and 3% (GU), 5% and 0% (GI) and 22% and 15% (ED). While GI toxicity remained stably low, grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity and ED were seen twice as frequent in the late phase (>3 months after treatment). Significant risk factors for grade ≥ 2 toxicity were baseline GU toxicity (grade ≥ 2), baseline ED (grade ≥ 2), IPSS (cut-off ≥ 14) and urethral dose (D10%, cut-off ≥ 17 Gy).

conclusionUltrafocal salvage HDR-BT is a safe re-treatment option, especially in patients with a favorable symptom profile at baseline. Adherence to urethral dose constraints is important to avoid GU toxicity.

Indexed as

CTCAE 4.0Focal salvage therapyLocal recurrenceProstate cancerToxicity

Identifiers

PMID33364450
PMCPMC7750686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.