Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41809561›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Microboost in Concert With Pelvic Nodal Irradiation for Prostate Cancer in the Higher-Risk Spectrum: Toxicity.

Mina Musthafa, Markus Wells, Timothy Kearney, Brianna Vizcaino, Vianca F Santos, Astrid Sanchez, Christopher Mendez, Aaron Katz, Keith Kowalcyzk, Ryan Hankins and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Mina MusthafaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.
Markus WellsDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Timothy KearneyDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Brianna VizcainoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.
Vianca F SantosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.
Astrid SanchezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.
Christopher MendezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.
Aaron KatzDepartment of Urology, New York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Keith KowalcyzkDepartment of Urology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Ryan HankinsDepartment of Urology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Mohit GuptaDepartment of Urology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Herbert LeporDepartment of Urology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Jonathan A HaasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.
Jonathan W LischalkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Hospital, Long Island, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Recent publications have renewed interest in prophylactic pelvic radiation therapy for higher-risk prostate cancer, as well as dose escalation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined intraprostatic lesions. Here, we explore the use of pelvic nodal irradiation with a 3-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost to the prostate and seminal vesicles, with a simultaneous MRI-directed focal intraprostatic lesion-ablative microboost (MIB). Methods and Materials: We evaluated an institutional registry of patients undergoing pelvic nodal radiation followed by an SBRT boost to the prostate and seminal vesicles from April 2021 to March 2023. The study was approved by the local institutional review board (study #00001269). All patients were treated with pelvic nodal irradiation followed by a 3-fraction SBRT boost. The prostate SBRT boost dose was primarily 2100 cGy in 3 fractions (an accommodated range of 1800-2100 cGy). A subgroup of 15 patients received an MIB to an additional dose of 2300 cGy in 3 fractions (range, 2100-2400 cGy). The distribution of adverse event grades for acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Results: Fifty-eight patients underwent pelvic nodal irradiation followed by an SBRT boost to the prostate, with the distribution of risk groups as follows: patients were either in the high (36.2%, n = 21) or very high (34.5% n = 20) risk groups, whereas those with known nodal disease (19.0%, n = 11) or intermediate risk (10.3%, n = 6) comprised the rest of the study population. Most patients received androgen-deprivation therapy. The prostate SBRT boost dose was primarily 2100 cGy in 3 fractions. Fifteen patients received an MIB to an additional dose of 2300 cGy in 3 fractions. A median follow-up of 8.7 months was used to document the incidence of GU and GI toxicity. The distribution of GI and GU toxicity showed no significant difference between the MIB and non-MIB subcohorts at either the acute (<90 days) or late (>90 days) time points. Two grade 3 toxicities were observed, both in the non-MIB cohort. Grade 2+ GI and GU toxicities were not significantly different between the 2 groups, as assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Conclusions: In the early follow-up period, we observed no significant difference in GI or GU toxicity between those who underwent MIB and those who did not. These results suggest that MRI-directed SBRT MIB did not increase GI toxicity and may even reduce GU toxicity compared with standard treatment. Future research should explore long-term side effects, with attention to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) scores and oncologic outcomes of this novel method of dose escalation.

Identifiers

PMID41809561
PMCPMC12969016

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.