ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Salvage Involved-Field and Extended-Field Radiation Therapy in Positron Emission Tomography-Positive Nodal Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Outcomes and Patterns of Failure.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The optimal salvage pelvic treatment for nodal recurrences in prostate cancer is not yet clearly defined. We aimed to compare outcomes of salvage involved-field radiation therapy (s-IFRT) and salvage extended-field radiation therapy (s-EFRT) for positron emission tomography/computed tomography-positive nodal-recurrent prostate cancer and to analyze patterns of progressions after salvage nodal radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: Patients with Results: Between 2009 and 2019, 86 patients were treated with salvage nodal radiation therapy: 38 with s-IFRT and 48 with s-EFRT. After a median follow-up of 41.9 months (5.4-122.1 months), 47 patients presented a further relapse: 31 after s-IFRT and 16 after s-EFRT, with only 1 in-field relapse. The median time to palliative ADT was 24.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.3-93.5 months) in the s-IFRT group and not yet reached (95% CI, 40.3 months to not yet reached) in the s-EFRT group ( Conclusions: s-EFRT and s-IFRT for positron emission tomography-positive nodal-recurrent prostate cancer provide excellent local control. Time to palliative ADT was longer following s-EFRT than following s-IFRT.
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.