Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42192417›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026

Effect comparison between a new hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen and conventional moderately hypofractionated regimen for localized prostate cancer.

Yuchen Han, Sijin Zhong, Xuesi Dong, Mengqi Zhang, Yexiong Li, Jianzhong Shou, Xingang Bi, Shulian Wang, Wenwen Zhang, Ningning Lu and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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

16 authors.

Yuchen HanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Sijin ZhongDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Xuesi DongOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Mengqi ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yexiong LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jianzhong ShouDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xingang BiDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Shulian WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Wenwen ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Ningning LuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Hui FangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yuan TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Bo ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Shunan QiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Lijuan NiuDepartment of Ultrasound, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. niulijuan8197@126.com.
Yueping LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. yuepingliu8@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incidence of Prostate cancer (PC) has risen steadily in China, and hypofractionated radiotherapy offers a biologically advantageous and time-efficient treatment strategy. However, long-term data in Chinese populations are limited. This study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen (45 Gy in 9 fractions) for localized PC. A propensity score-matched comparison was conducted to contextualize its effectiveness and toxicity relative to a moderately hypofractionated regimen.

methodsFrom October 2011 to April 2017, thirty patients with localized PC who received hypofractionated radiotherapy (45 Gy in 9 fractions) were enrolled in this prospective trial. Ninety-five patients treated with a moderately hypofractionated regimen at the same center between February 2009 and October 2019 were selected. The propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the potential confounding bias. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (grade ≥ 2) were assessed using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3.0) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group late morbidity criteria. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), PC-specific survival (PCSS), and GU and GI toxicities.

resultsAfter a median follow-up of 10.3 years, patients treated with the 45 Gy in 9 fractions regimen achieved favorable long-term outcomes, with the 10-year PFS, bRFS, and OS rates of 78.1%, 93.3%, and 84.3%, respectively, with no prostate cancer-related deaths. PSM analysis yielded 60 comparable patients: (36 in the 67.5 Gy/25 fractions group and 24 in the 45 Gy//9 fractions group). No significant differences were observed between the 45 Gy/9 fractions and 67.5 Gy/25 fractions groups in 10-year OS (72.1% vs. 73.5%, P = 0.583), PFS (68.8% vs. 75%,P = 0.205), or freedom from failure(95.8% vs.94.0%, P = 0.757) Regarding toxicity, the 45 Gy /9 fractions was associated with significantly lower GI toxicity compared with the moderately hypofractionated regimen (P = 0.018), whereas GU toxicity did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.757).

conclusionsAfter long-term follow-up, the hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen of 45 Gy /9 fractions showed encouraging survival outcomes and acceptable toxicity in patients with localized PC. In the propensity score-matched analysis, no statistically significant differences in oncologic outcomes were observed between the 45 Gy/9 fractions regimen and the moderately hypofractionated regimen, while lower gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in the 45 Gy/9 fractions group. however, this finding should be interpreted cautiously in light of the limited sample size, non-randomized design, and technical differences between the cohorts.

trial registrationChiCTR-ONC-12001895. Registered retrospectively on 28 January 2012.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsRadiation Dose HypofractionationRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesSurvival RateEfficiency and toxicityHypofractionationPropensity score matching analysisProstate cancerRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID42192417
PMCPMC13393695

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.