ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Acute toxicity patterns and their management after moderate and ultra- hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Routine Inflammatory and Hematological Markers and Acute Radiation Toxicity in Patients with Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Post-treatment changes in bowel and urinary function in prostate cancer patients treated with moderate or ultra-hypofractionation: A prospective cohort study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hypofractionation has become the new clinical standard for prostate cancer. We investigated the management of acute toxicity in patients treated with moderate hypofractionation (MHF) or Ultrahypofractionation (UHF). Methods: In a prospective cohort setting, patients (N=316) received either MHF (20 fractions of 3/3.1 Gy, 5 fractions per week, N=156) or UHF (7 fractions of 6.1 Gy, 3 fractions per week, N=160) to the prostate +/- (base of the) seminal vesicles between 2019 and 2023. UHF was not indicated in case of significant lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or T3b disease. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were online distributed at baseline, end of treatment (aiming at last fraction +/- 3 days), 3 months. Acute toxicity rates, management, and associations with baseline factors were analysed using Chi-square test and logistic regression. CTCAE scores (version 5) were calculated. Results: Treatment for acute urinary complaints was prescribed in 46 % (MHF) and 29 % (UHF). Taking into consideration baseline LUTS, MHF and UHF showed similar rates of PROs and management. Medication for acute gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was prescribed for 21.1 % (MHF) and 14.1 % (UHF) with more loperamide for diarrhea in MHF (9.0 %) vs UHF (1.9 %, p = 0.005). Grade ≥ 2 (MHF / UHF) was scored in 40 % / 28 % for GI (p = 0.03) and 50 % / 31 % for GU (p < 0.01). PROs for GI reported after last fraction of UHF were significantly worse compared to before last fraction. Conclusion: UHF was safe with respect to acute toxicity risks in the selected population. MHF is associated with risks of significant diarrhea which needs further investigation. Furthermore, optimal registration of acute toxicity for UHF requires measurements up to 1-2 weeks after the last fraction.
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.