ArticleCureus2026
Optimising Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Treatment Schedules and Toxicities.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies diagnosed among men worldwide, ranking second in terms of incidence, and is managed using a multimodality treatment approach. Radiotherapy remains a cornerstone in the management of localized and locally advanced disease. Although conventional fractionated radiotherapy (C-RT) has historically been the standard of care, accumulating radiobiological evidence supports the use of hypofractionated regimens. Prostate cancer exhibits a low α/β ratio (typically 1.5-3 Gy), indicating greater tumor sensitivity to larger fraction sizes and providing a strong radiobiological rationale for hypofractionated radiotherapy (hypo-RT) without escalating late toxicity to surrounding normal tissues. Aim This study aimed to compare biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) and toxicity profiles between moderate hypo-RT and C-RT. Materials In our study, we analysed the data of 20 patients treated between January 2022 and January 2024. Patients received either moderate hypo-RT (70 Gy in 28 fractions) with an EQD2 of 77 Gy or C-RT (80 Gy in 40 fractions). Treatment planning involved daily cone beam CT (CBCT)-based image guidance and strict bladder-rectal protocols. Target delineation adhered to the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) contouring guidelines. Toxicities were assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria and quality of life (QoL) by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Results At a median follow-up of 24 months, bRFS was comparable between the two treatment groups. Grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities did not differ significantly between hypo-RT and C-RT arms (p>0.05). Urinary symptom-related outcomes were similar across groups, with no statistically or clinically meaningful differences observed. Conclusion Moderate hypo-RT takes advantage of the radiobiological properties of prostate cancer with its low α/β ratio in achieving comparable oncologic outcomes with minimal early and late toxicities in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer without affecting the QoL.
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.