Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34850352›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2022

Dose-escalated pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer in definitive or postoperative setting.

Giulio Francolini, Giulia Stocchi, Beatrice Detti, Vanessa Di Cataldo, Alessio Bruni, Luca Triggiani, Andrea Emanuele Guerini, Rosario Mazzola, Francesco Cuccia, Matteo Mariotti and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Giulio FrancoliniRadiation Oncology Unit, University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 85, 50134, Florence, Italy. francolinigiulio@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1784-7203
Giulia StocchiDepartment of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Beatrice DettiRadiation Oncology Unit, University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 85, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Vanessa Di CataldoCyberKnife Center, Istituto Fiorentino di Cura ed Assistenza, Florence, Italy.
Alessio BruniRadiotherapy Unit, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Luca TriggianiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brescia University, Brescia, Italy.
Andrea Emanuele GueriniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brescia University, Brescia, Italy.
Rosario MazzolaRadiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
Francesco CucciaRadiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
Matteo MariottiDepartment of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Viola SalvestriniDepartment of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Pietro GarlattiDepartment of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Simona BorghesiRadiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Arezzo, Italy.
Gianluca IngrossoRadiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Science, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
Rita BellavitaRadiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Science, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
Cynthia AristeiRadiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Science, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
Isacco DesideriDepartment of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo LiviDepartment of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · ITUniversity of Perugia · ITOspedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria · ITUniversity of Brescia · ITAzienda Usl 8 Arezzo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGiven the absence of standardized planning approach for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa), we collected data about the use of prophylactic pelvic irradiation and nodal boost. The aim of the present series is to retrospectively assess clinical outcomes after this approach to compare different multimodal treatment strategies in this scenario.

methodsData from clinical records of patients affected by cN1 PCa and treated in six different Italian institutes with prophylactic pelvic irradiation and boost on pathologic pelvic lymph nodes detected with CT, MRI or choline PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed and collected. Clinical outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS) were explored. The correlation between outcomes and baseline features (International Society of Urological Pathology-ISUP pattern, total dose to positive pelvic nodes ≤ / > 60 Gy, sequential or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) administration and definitive vs postoperative treatment) was explored.

resultsISUP pattern < 2 was a significant predictor of improved b-RFS (HR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1220-0.7647, P = 0.0113), while total dose < 60 Gy to positive pelvic nodes was associated with worse b-RFS (HR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.3245-9.741, P = 0.01). Conversely, treatment setting (postoperative vs definitive) and treatment delivery technique (SIB vs sequential boost) were not associated with significant differences in terms of b-RFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.338-2.169, P = 0.743, and HR = 2.39, 95% CI 0.93-6.111, P = 0.067, respectively).

conclusionResults from the current analysis are in keeping with data from literature showing that pelvic irradiation and boost on positive nodes are effective approaches. Upfront surgical approach was not associated with better clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

AgedDiagnostic ImagingHumansItalyLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBoostDose escalationProstate cancerRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34850352
OpenAlexW3217685442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.