ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Analysis of standard vs dose-escalated stereotactic body radiation therapy in localized prostate cancer: a comparative evaluation of survival outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and purpose: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of high-dose biologically effective dose (BED) versus standard dose regimens in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Methods: Between June 2012 and February 2022, prostate-localized SBRT patients from two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. The high-dose group (n=12) received high-dose BED Results: In the 7-year follow-up, the high-dose group exhibited a 66.7% OS rate vs. 83.4% in controls (p=0.402) and an 88.9% CSS rate compared to 90.5% in controls (p=0.480). The high-dose group demonstrated a 91.7% 7-year bPFS rate, while controls had a 67.4% rate (p=0.497). Higher gleason score correlated with impaired biochemical control (p=0.028), and adverse NCCN classifications indicated suboptimal control (p=0.028). The high-dose group achieved a 100% 7-year LC rate vs. 95.1% in controls (p=0.569) and a 91.7% 7-year DMFS rate compared to 81.6% in controls (p=0.918). Patients with pre-existing health conditions were less likely to develop distant metastasis (p=0.047). Most patients tolerated SBRT with minimal toxicity, and no grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Escalating the biologically effective dose above standard levels did not yield a significant improvement in tumor control or survival outcomes compared to conventional SBRT dosing for localized PCa. Further prospective studies are warranted to clarify the role of dose escalation in this setting.
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.