ArticlePractical radiation oncology
Combination Metastasis-Targeted External Beam Radiation Therapy With
Article in Practical radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeted Radionuclide Therapy: Current Landscape and Combination Approaches to Improve Oncology Outcomes.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Strategies in Prostate Cancer: Targeted Approaches Using PARP Inhibition, PSMA-Directed Therapy, and Androgen Receptor Blockade with Olaparib, Lutetium (Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The role of PSMA PET/CT in distinguishing malignant from benign solitary bone lesions in prostate cancer patients.Clinical imaging · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMETHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective institutional review board-exempted study reviewed patients treated with LuPSMA at a multi-institutional academic cancer center within the first 2 years after United States Food and Drug Administration's approval, receiving contemporaneous M-EBRT. Clinical factors driving the use of M-EBRT were analyzed.
resultsTreatment courses of 261 patients receiving LuPSMA were reviewed; 52 patients received M-EBRT contemporaneously. M-EBRT was administered for intracranial/epidural disease (n = 22/52; 42%), bone pain palliation (n = 17/52; 33%), prevention of pathological fractures (n = 12/52; 23%), and 12% (n = 6/52) for various other indications. M-EBRT timing varied among patients, with 54% (n = 28/52) receiving M-EBRT before, 27% (n = 14/52) after, and 13% (n = 7/52) during LuPSMA therapy. EBRT was mostly well tolerated, although lymphopenia was commonly experienced. Most patients (n = 32/52; 62%) had symptom relief following M-EBRT. Symptom relief post-M-EBRT was 68%, 85%, and 50%, and mortality rates were 32%, 29%, and 57% for patients receiving EBRT before, during, and after LuPSMA treatment, respectively, albeit not statistically significant (P > .23). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)50 (decrease in PSA by 50% during treatment) response in this patient population was 41% compared with 50% in the general LuPSMA population, but the magnitude of PSA response was heterogeneous (P = .27).
conclusionsIn our experience, M-EBRT was used effectively with LuPSMA therapy for local tumor control and symptom management, especially for localized osseous and central nervous system lesions, and with good tolerability. M-EBRT may be an important adjunct treatment modality that facilitates the initiation and/or continuation of LuPSMA.
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.