Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33653964›Full record

Trial reportAging2021

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated image-guided volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase II randomized trial from China.

Qiu-Zi Zhong, Xiu Xia, Hong Gao, Yong-Gang Xu, Ting Zhao, Qin-Hong Wu, Dan Wang, Hai-Lei Lin, Xiang-Yan Sha, Ming Liu and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qiu-Zi ZhongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Xiu XiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Hong GaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Yong-Gang XuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Ting ZhaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Qin-Hong WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Dan WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Hai-Lei LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Xiang-Yan ShaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Ming LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Gao-Feng LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P. R. China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the safety of hypofractionated imaging-guided (IG) volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (IG-VMAT; 70 Gy/28 fractions over 5.5 weeks) versus conventionally fractionated regimen (IG-VMAT; 80 Gy/40 fractions over 8 weeks) in Chinese patients with localized prostate cancer.

methodIn this randomized non-comparative phase II trial, 92 patients with localized prostate cancer were assigned to receive either hypofractionated IG-VMAT (HFRT; 70 Gy/2.5Gy/28f) or conventionally fractionated IG-VMAT (CFRT; 80 Gy/2Gy/40f). Primary endpoint was grade 2 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity at 2 years. The GI/GU toxicity and biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) were compared between the two treatment groups.

resultsMedian follow-up was 26 months. The incidence of grade 2 or higher late GI/GU toxicity was low in both groups; the 5-year cumulative incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 2 or higher GI/GU toxicity at 2 years was 7.6% with HFRT versus 10.3% with CFRT (

conclusionHypofractionated IG-VMAT appears to be equivalent to conventionally fractionated IG-VMAT in terms of toxicity in Chinese patients with localized prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Dose Fractionation, RadiationRadiation Dose HypofractionationAgedChinaDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedefficacyhypofractionatedIGRTprostate cancerradiotherapytoxicity

Identifiers

PMID33653964
PMCPMC7993676
OpenAlexW3134473473

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.