Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33444529›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2021

Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (HYPO-RT-PC): patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

Per Fransson, Per Nilsson, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson, Lars Beckman, Björn Tavelin, David Norman, Camilla Thellenberg-Karlsson, Morten Hoyer, Magnus Lagerlund, Jon Kindblom and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07130682 (2-fraction Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT07130682 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

2-fraction Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy (SBPT) With Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Guidance in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-arm Phase II Non-randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHong Kong Sanatorium & HospitalRan2025 to 2033Enrolled35ConditionsProstate Cancer Patients Treated by RadiotherapyArmsPencil Beam Proton Therapy Treatment Machine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Randomized Trial of Conventional Versus Conventional Plus Fluciclovine (International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Dosimetric robustness of urethra sparing in ultrahypofractionated prostate SBRT using catheter-based motion tracking.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Per FranssonDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. Electronic address: per.m.fransson@umu.se.
Per NilssonDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Adalsteinn GunnlaugssonDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lars BeckmanDepartment of Oncology, Sundsvall Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden.
Björn TavelinDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
David NormanDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Camilla Thellenberg-KarlssonDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Morten HoyerDepartment of Oncology and Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Magnus LagerlundDepartment of Oncology, Kalmar Hospital, Kalmar, Sweden.
Jon KindblomDepartment of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Claes GinmanDepartment of Oncology, Karlstad Central Hospital, Karlstad, Sweden.
Bengt JohanssonDepartment of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Kirsten BjörnlingerDepartment of Oncology, Ryhov Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.
Mihajl SekeDepartment of Oncology, Centrallasarettet, Växjö, Sweden.
Måns AgrupDepartment of Oncology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.
Björn ZackrissonDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Elisabeth KjellénDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lars FranzénDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Anders WidmarkDepartment of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe HYPO-RT-PC trial compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Ultra-hypofractionation was non-inferior to conventional fractionation regarding 5-year failure-free survival and toxicity. We aimed to assess whether patient-reported quality of life (QOL) differs between conventional fractionation and ultra-hypofractionation up to 6 years after treatment in the HYPO-RT-PC trial.

methodsHYPO-RT-PC is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 12 centres (seven university hospitals and five county hospitals) in Sweden and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were histologically verified intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (defined as T1c-T3a with one or two of the following risk factors: stage T3a; Gleason score ≥7; and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases), age up to 75 years, and WHO performance status 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to conventional fractionation (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) or ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) via a minimisation algorithm with stratification by trial centre, T-stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen. QOL was measured using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy, months 3, 6, 12, and 24 after radiotherapy, every other year thereafter up to 10 years, and at 15 years. The primary endpoint (failure-free survival) has been reported elsewhere. Here we report QOL, a secondary endpoint analysed in the per-protocol population, up to 6 years after radiotherapy. The HYPO-RT-PC trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45905321.

findingsBetween July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were enrolled and 1180 were randomly assigned (conventional fractionation n=591, ultra-hypofractionation n=589); 1165 patients (conventional fractionation n=582, ultra-hypofractionation n=583) were included in this QOL analysis. 158 (71%) of 223 patients in the conventional fractionation group and 146 (66%) of 220 in the ultra-hypofractionation group completed questionnaires at 6 years. The median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 25-72). In seven of ten bowel symptoms or problems the proportion of patients with clinically relevant deteriorations at the end of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the ultra-hypofractionation group than in the conventional fractionation group (stool frequency [p<0·0001], rush to toilet [p=0·0013], flatulence [p=0·0013], bowel cramp [p<0·0001], mucus [p=0·0014], blood in stool [p<0·0001], and limitation in daily activity [p=0·0014]). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with clinically relevant acute urinary symptoms or problems (total 14 items) and sexual functioning between the two treatment groups at end of radiotherapy. Thereafter, there were no clinically relevant differences in urinary, bowel, or sexual functioning between the groups. At the 6-year follow-up there was no difference in the incidence of clinically relevant deterioration between the groups for overall urinary bother (43 [33%] of 132 for conventional fractionation vs 33 [28%] of 120 for ultra-hypofractionation; mean difference 5·1% [95% CI -4·4 to 14·6]; p=0·38), overall bowel bother (43 [33%] of 129 vs 34 [28%] of 123; 5·7% [-3·8 to 15·2]; p=0·33), overall sexual bother (75 [60%] of 126 vs 59 [50%] of 117; 9·1% [-1·4 to 19·6]; p=0·15), or global health/QOL (56 [42%] of 134 vs 46 [37%] of 125; 5·0% [-5·0 to 15·0]; p=0·41).

interpretationAlthough acute toxicity was higher for ultra-hypofractionation than conventional fractionation, this long-term patient-reported QOL analysis shows that ultra-hypofractionation was as well tolerated as conventional fractionation up to 6 years after completion of treatment. These findings support the use of ultra-hypofractionation radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer.

fundingThe Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationRadiation Dose HypofractionationRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.