ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2026
Early outcomes after focal high-dose-rate brachytherapy in low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: promising early results from a prospective randomized trial.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the QoL of patients diagnosed with low- or favorable-intermediate-risk PCa after focal HDR brachytherapy and active surveillance. Our secondary objectives were to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between patients who underwent focal treatment and those who were actively surveilled and to assess early and late GU and GI adverse effects after the focal HDR brachytherapy. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at the National Cancer Center located in Vilnius, Lithuania. The study was initiated after approval from the Vilnius Regional Biomedical Research Ethics Committee was obtained (Approval ID 2022/6-1438-911). Twenty-seven patients were assigned to the AS group and 28 to the focal HDR group. Results: During the median follow-up time of 14 and 17 months for AS and HDR groups, respectively, the QoL, evaluated by the EORTC QLQ-30 and PR25 instruments, showed no statistically significant differences in functional scores between the groups after baseline adjustment. Additionally, patients in the HDR group reported better urinary outcomes as measured by EORTC PR25 and IPSS scores at 6, 12, and 18 months. There were no statistically significant differences in erectile function between the groups as measured by the IIEF. Early toxicity was low (no Grade ≥3 events), and only two cases (7.1 %) of Grade 2 GU toxicity were reported in the HDR group within the first 3 months, with one case persisting for 6 months. Late toxicity was not assessed during this interim follow-up. The HDR group demonstrated a non-significant trend toward better oncological outcomes, with fewer PSA-based recurrences and a higher mean PFS than the AS. At the time of last follow-up, 49/55 (89 %) patients were censored (22/27 in the AS and 27/28 in the HDR group). Conclusions: A current study shows comparable QoL and early toxicity results between AS and HDR groups. Any domain-level signals were below MCID and did not persist after baseline adjustment. Results of PFS are underpowered at this interim analysis due to short follow-up and high censoring, and should be considered hypothesis-generating only. However, as current results are only exploratory and insufficient to assess durable disease control or late toxicity, a longer follow-up, larger cohorts, and a multicenter approach are needed to provide definitive outcomes to demonstrate the benefit of focal brachytherapy.
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.