ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2024
Impact of prostate position-based image-guidance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of image-guided radiation therapy with intraprostatic seeds on long-term toxicity in prostate cancer patients undergoing risk-adapted intensification therapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Late urinary toxicity after prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients with history of invasive interventions for prostate or bladder.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Dosimetric advantages of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using biaxially rotational dynamic radiation therapy compared with coplanar VMAT in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy with focal boost.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Development of a novel risk model to predict CRPC progression following IMRT: Implications for tailoring treatment intensity.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Narrative review of focal boost to intraprostatic dominant lesion in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Highly hypofractionated biaxially rotational dynamic radiation therapy (BROAD-RT) for high-risk prostate cancer.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Real-world comparative outcomes and toxicities after definitive radiotherapy using proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a retrospective, single-institutional analysis.Journal of radiation research · 2025Article
- Spatial Pattern of Intraprostatic Recurrence after Definitive External-Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Implications for Focal Boost to Intraprostatic Dominant Lesion.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background/purposeThe long-term clinical impact of prostate position-based image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for localized prostate cancer remains unclear. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively compared clinical outcomes following intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with cone-beam computed tomography-based prostate position-based IGRT (P-IGRT) or without P-IGRT (non-P-IGRT). From June 2011, we applied P-IGRT in IMRT for intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) (D'Amico risk classification) (76 Gy in 38 fractions, with smaller margins). Clinical outcomes of patients who received P-IGRT between June 2011 and June 2019 were retrospectively compared with those of patients with IR PCa who received IMRT without P-IGRT between October 2002 and May 2011 in our institution (74 Gy in 37 fractions).
resultsA total of 222 consecutive patients were analyzed: 114 in the P-IGRT cohort and 108 in the non-P-IGRT cohort. The median follow-up period after IMRT was 7.1 years for the P-IGRT cohort and 10.8 years for the non-P-IGRT cohort. The biochemical failure-free rate was significantly better in the P-IGRT cohort (94.9% for the P-IGRT cohort vs 82.7% for the non-P-IGRT cohort at 10 years, p = 0.041). The rate of rectal bleeding which needs intervention including the use of suppositories was significantly lower in the P-IGRT cohort (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe use of P-IGRT with higher doses and smaller margins was correlated with significantly better biochemical control, and a lower incidence of rectal bleeding in IMRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The enhanced accuracy using P-IGRT has the potential to independently improve disease control and reduce late rectal bleeding.
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.