ReviewPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
External beam focal boost radiotherapy to intraprostatic lesions in prostate cancer: a scoping review.
Review in Physics and imaging 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Focal boost external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) delivers an escalated dose to intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) in prostate cancer. It is an emerging field characterized by highly heterogeneous practices. Materials and methods: This scoping review was conducted with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Eligible reports were reports detailing treatment methods and outcomes of focal boost EBRT in prostate cancer. Results: Forty-two studies were reviewed. Fractionation shifted over time from conventional to moderate and ultra hypofractionation. Patient populations were largely high-risk localized disease. Assuming α/β = 1.5, equivalent IPL boost dose in 2 Gy/fraction spanned 71.3-138 Gy in 32-45 fractions with conventional fractionation, 81.5-112.5 Gy in 15-25 fractions with moderate hypofractionation, and 96.4-196.4 Gy in 2-5 fractions with ultra hypofractionation. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used for IPL delineation in 39 studies, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in five studies. Five-year biochemical disease-free survival and overall survival were: conventional fractionation 92-98.2% & 100%, moderate 75.2-96.7% & not reported, and ultra hypofractionation 93.2-100% & 86-100%. Median ≥ Grade 2 genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicities were < 45% and ≥ Grade 3 < 10%. Conclusions: Focal boost EBRT appears feasible and may improve biochemical control without increasing toxicity, particularly in high-risk disease. However, optimal dose/fractionation, organ at risk constraints, and long-term survival benefits remain undefined. Large, preferably multicenter prospective studies involving several hundred patients, with standardized endpoints and comprehensive toxicity assessment are warranted.
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.