ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2021
Comparison of EBRT and I-125 seed brachytherapy concerning outcome in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities between brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2023Pooled it
- [MiR-132-3p negatively regulates CAMTA1 to promote Schwann cell proliferation and migration and alleviates I-125 seeds-induced exacerbation of facial nerve injury in rats].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2024Article
- Comparison of treatment costs for primary localized prostate cancer in Austria and Vienna: an economic analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study's objective was the comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and I‑125 seed brachytherapy regarding clinical outcome and development of side effects. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn all, 462 localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated between 2000 and 2019 at our department using either I‑125 seed brachytherapy or EBRT with a dose of 74 or 78 Gy were included: 297 patients were treated with EBRT and 165 with seeds. Biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates according to Phoenix definition as well as late gastrointestinal and urogenital side effects (EORTC/RTOG) were assessed.
resultsPatients were followed up yearly with a median follow-up of 54 (3-192) months. Observed bNED rates for 74 Gy, 78 Gy and seeds were 87, 92, and 88% after 5 years and 71, 85, and 76% after 9 years, respectively. No significant differences were found comparing seeds with 74 Gy (p = 0.81) and 78 Gy (p = 0.19), as well as between 74 and 78 Gy (p = 0.32). Concerning gastrointestinal side effects, EBRT showed significantly higher rates of RTOG grade ≥ 2 toxicity compared to seeds, but at no point of the follow-up more than 10% of all patients. However, genitourinary side effects were significantly more prevalent in patients treated with seeds, with 33% RTOG grade ≥ 2 toxicity 12 months after treatment. Nevertheless, both types of side effects decreased over time.
conclusionFavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients can be treated either by external beam radiotherapy (74/78 Gy) or permanent interstitial seed brachytherapy.
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.