Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2022
Quality of Life Implications of Dose-Escalated External Beam Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial, NRG/RTOG 0126.
Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between dose to specific pelvic substructures and urinary and sexual dysfunction following Single-Dose ablative radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: A post hoc analysis from the ABRUPT trial.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Intensity modulated radiation therapy in prostate cancer-Better survival with higher total dose?Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025Article
- Challenges and opportunities to minimize the dose in the neurovascular bundles during prostate radiotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Analysis of standard vs dose-escalated stereotactic body radiation therapy in localized prostate cancer: a comparative evaluation of survival outcomes.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Microboost in Localized Prostate Cancer: Analysis of a Statewide Quality Consortium.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Radiation-Induced Hemorrhagic Cystitis in Prostate Cancer Survivors: The Hidden Toll.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Using the Cell-Cycle Risk Score to Predict the Benefit of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Added to Radiation Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- The Current Trend of Radiation Therapy for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation for intact localized prostate cancer how to optimally test a rapidly emerging technology.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
22 authors at 16 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeExternal beam radiation therapy (EBRT) dose escalation has been tested in multiple prospective trials. However, the impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs) associated with higher doses of EBRT remain poorly understood. We sought to assess the differences in PROs between men treated with a dose of 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of EBRT for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The phase 3 clinical trial RTOG 0126 randomized 1532 patients with prostate cancer between March 2002 and August 2008 to 79.2 Gy over 44 fractions versus 70.2 Gy over 39 fractions. Eligible patients participated in the PRO data collection. PROs completed included the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF), Functional Alterations due to Changes in Elimination (FACE), and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (SQLI). The timepoints for the IIEF were collected pre-entry and at 6, 12, and 24 months. The FACE and SQLI were collected pre-entry and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The impact of EBRT dose to normal structures (penile bulb, rectum, and bladder) on PROs was also examined. Mixed effects models were used to analyze trends across time.
resultsIn total, 1144 patients completed baseline IIEF forms and of these, 56%, 64%, and 61% completed the IIEF at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively; 1123 patients completed the FACE score at baseline and 50%, 61%, 73%, 61%, and 65% completed all 15 items for the FACE metric at timepoints of 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Erectile dysfunction at 12 months based on the single question was not significantly different between arms (38.1% for the standard dose radiation therapy arm vs 49.7% for the dose escalated radiation therapy arm; P = .051). Treatment arm (70.2 vs 79.2) had no significant impact on any PRO metrics measured across all collected domains. Comprehensive dosimetric analyses are presented and reveal multiple significant differences to regional organs at risk.
conclusionsCompliance with PRO data collection was lower than anticipated in this phase 3 trial. Examining the available data, dose escalated EBRT did not appear to be associated with any detriment to PROs across numerous prospectively collected domains. These data, notwithstanding limitations, add to our understanding of the implications of EBRT dose escalation in prostate cancer. Furthermore, these results illustrate challenges associated with PRO data collection.
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.