Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38023175›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with CyberKnife

Valentina Borzillo, Esmeralda Scipilliti, Donato Pezzulla, Marcello Serra, Gianluca Ametrano, Giuseppe Quarto, Sisto Perdonà, Sabrina Rossetti, Sandro Pignata, Anna Crispo and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

19 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Valentina BorzilloDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Esmeralda ScipillitiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Donato PezzullaRadiation Oncology Unit, Responsible Research Hospital, Campobasso, Italy.
Marcello SerraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Gianluca AmetranoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Giuseppe QuartoDepartment of Uro-Gynecological, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Sisto PerdonàDepartment of Uro-Gynecological, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Sabrina RossettiDepartmental Unit of Clinical and Experimental Uro-Andrologic Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Sandro PignataDepartmental Unit of Clinical and Experimental Uro-Andrologic Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Anna CrispoEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Piergiacomo Di GennaroEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Valentina D'AlesioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Cecilia ArrichielloDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Francesca BuonannoLB Business Services SRL, Rome, Italy.
Simona MercoglianoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Antonio RussoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Oncology, University "Federico II" of Naples, Napoli, Italy.
Antonio TufanoDepartment of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Rossella Di FrancoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Paolo MutoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITStudio Ricerche Sociali · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simple summary: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions with the CyberKnife System yields excellent control with low toxicity in low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We found no differences in biochemical control and overall survival in relation to dose. There were no significant differences in toxicity or quality of life between the two groups. Aims: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging therapeutic approach for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We present retrospective data on biochemical control, toxicity, and quality of life of CyPro Trial. Materials and methods: A total of 122 patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with the CyberKnife System at a dose of 35 Gy or 36.25 Gy in five fractions. Biochemical failure (BF)/biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) was defined using the Phoenix method (nadir + 2 ng/ml). Acute/late rectal and urinary toxicities were assessed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity scale. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and PR25. International Erectile Function Index-5 (IIEF5) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaires were administered at baseline, every 3 months after treatment during the first years, and then at 24 months and 36 months. Results: The 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rates were 92.9%, 92.9%, and 92.3%, respectively, while the 1-, 2-, and 5-year bDFS rates were 100%, 100%, and 95.7%, respectively. With regard to risk groups or doses, no statistically significant differences were found in terms of DFS or bDFS. Grade 2 urinary toxicity was acute in 10% and delayed in 2% of patients. No Grade 3 acute and late urinary toxicity was observed. Grade 2 rectal toxicity was acute in 8% and late in 1% of patients. No Grade 3-4 acute and late rectal toxicity was observed. Grade 2 acute toxicity appeared higher in the high-dose group (20% in the 36.25-Gy group versus 3% in the 35-Gy group) but was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Our study confirms that SBRT of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions with the CyberKnife System produces excellent control with low toxicity in patients with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We found no dose-related differences in biochemical control and overall survival. Further confirmation of these results is awaited through the prospective phase of this study, which is still ongoing.

Indexed as

clinical outcomelow-and intermediate-riskprostate cancerradiotherapystereotactic body radiationtoxicity

Identifiers

PMID38023175
PMCPMC10660677
OpenAlexW4388455963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.