ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Prospective controlled study comparing patient-reported outcomes after daily online adaptive radiotherapy or conventional IGRT in patients with prostate cancer.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. 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.
- Acute toxicity and patient-reported quality of life during daily online adaptive radiotherapy versus conventional IGRT for localized prostate cancer: a prospective parallel cohort study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Uncertainty estimation for reliable neural network-based radiotherapy dose modelling using Monte Carlo dropout, mean variance estimation and deep ensemble.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients treated either with cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) or with CBCT-guided conventional image guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Materials and methods: In this prospective study with convenience allocation, patients with localized prostate cancer received 62 Gy/20 fractions using either daily CBCT-based oART or CBCT-guided conventional IGRT. PROMs (EPIC, QLQ-PR25, IPSS, NCI-PRO-CTCAE) were collected at baseline and at end of therapy. Changes in scores and clinically meaningful deterioration, based on established minimal clinically important differences (MCID), were analyzed. Results: Seventy-four patients were included (oART: 58.1 %; IGRT: 41.9 %). Groups were demographically similar, although the oART group included more patients with high-risk tumors (40.5 % vs. 9.7 %, p = 0.03). Patients after oART tended to experience smaller, although not statistically significant, declines in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains compared to IGRT: EPIC urinary summary (-12.15 vs -20.57, p = 0.07), urinary function (-9.53 vs -17.47, p = 0.05), urinary incontinence (-5.47 vs -13.93, p = 0.07) and PR25 urinary symptom (20.0 vs. 27.5, p = 0.06). EPIC bowel function decline was also less pronounced (-12.64 vs. -19.78, p = 0.10). NCI-PRO-CTCAE scores favored oART for reduced urinary urgency (0.95 vs. 1.57, p = 0.02) and fecal incontinence (0.03 vs. 0.71, p = 0.02). Fewer oART patients reached MCID thresholds for urinary (8-21 %) and bowel (20-23 %) deterioration, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Our results suggest a small but consistent trend in PROM scores favoring oART over conventional IGRT. In addition, the results may inform the design of controlled randomized trials in the future
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.