ArticleCancers2021
Optimizing External Beam Radiotherapy as per the Risk Group of Localized Prostate Cancer: A Nationwide Multi-Institutional Study (KROG 18-15).
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Residential location shapes initial prostate cancer care in Korea (2010-2020): A nationwide stage- and risk-stratified study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis nationwide multi-institutional study analyzed the patterns of care and outcomes of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in localized prostate cancer patients. We compared various risk classification tools and assessed the need for refinements in current radiotherapy (RT) schemes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with primary EBRT from 2001 to 2015 in this study. Data of 1573 patients from 17 institutions were analyzed and re-grouped using a risk stratification tool with the highest predictive power for biochemical failure-free survival (BCFFS). We evaluated BCFFS, overall survival (OS), and toxicity rates.
resultsWith a median follow-up of 75 months, 5- and 10-year BCFFS rates were 82% and 60%, and 5- and 10-year OS rates were 95% and 83%, respectively. NCCN risk classification revealed the highest predictive power (AUC = 0.556, 95% CI 0.524-0.588;
conclusionsWith NCCN risk classification, dose escalation with modern high-precision techniques might increase survivals in the high-risk group, but not in the low-risk group, although mature results of prospective studies are awaited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.