Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39318861›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Clinical and Dosimetric Comparison Between Non-image Guided Radiation Therapy and Fiducial-Based Image Guided Radiation Therapy With or Without Reduced Margin in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Itsuko Serizawa, Takuyo Kozuka, Takashi Soyano, Kazuma Sasamura, Tatsuya Kamima, Hiroaki Kunogi, Nozomi Kurihara, Noboru Numao, Shinya Yamamoto, Junji Yonese and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  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

11 authors.

Itsuko SerizawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Takuyo KozukaDepartment of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi SoyanoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Kazuma SasamuraDepartment of Radiology, Musashino Red Cross Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Tatsuya KamimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroaki KunogiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Nozomi KuriharaDepartment of Clinical Trial Planning and Management, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Noboru NumaoDepartment of Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Shinya YamamotoDepartment of Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Junji YoneseDepartment of Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasuo YoshiokaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the outcomes and toxicities between patients treated with image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using fiducial markers and non-IGRT in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: In total, 518 patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer received IMRT with 78 Gy in 39 fractions after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for at least 3 months. Of these patients, 371 were in the non-IGRT group and 147 in the IGRT group, including the IGRT-A group using the same margins as the non-IGRT group and the IGRT-B group using reduced margins. The median follow-up periods for the non-IGRT, IGRT-A, and IGRT-B groups were 99 months, 88 months, and 63 months, respectively. Results: The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates in the non-IGRT, IGRT-A, and IGRT-B groups were 88%, 95%, and 98% (non-IGRT vs IGRT-A, Conclusions: IGRT with fiducial markers results in lower acute and late toxicities compared with non-IGRT in IMRT for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Moreover, the toxicities are further decreased by reducing the margins in the treatment planning under IGRT. These processes do not decrease the biochemical recurrence-free survival rates.

Identifiers

PMID39318861
PMCPMC11421235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.