Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42657230›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026

Physician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Contemporary Image Guided Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results From the Prospective PRO-Cube Study.

Sham Sundar, Srinivas Chilukuri, Manikandan Arjunan, Ramakrishna Kamath, Abhilasha Sinha, Mahalakshmi Palani, Pankaj Kumar Panda, Sujith K Mullapally, Srivathsan Ramani, Narasimhan Ragavan 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.

Sham SundarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Srinivas ChilukuriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Manikandan ArjunanDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ramakrishna KamathDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abhilasha SinhaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Mahalakshmi PalaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Pankaj Kumar PandaDepartment of Clinical Research, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sujith K MullapallyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Srivathsan RamaniDepartment of Uro-Oncology & Robotic Surgery, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Narasimhan RagavanDepartment of Uro-Oncology, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Prashant JawaharDepartment of Radiology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jaykanth AmalachandranDepartment of Radiology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Dayananda Shamurailatpam SharmaDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rakesh JalaliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Multiple prospective studies have established the safety of proton therapy for localized prostate cancer. However, prospective data defining physician-reported adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with contemporary image guided intensity modulated proton therapy (IG-IMPT) in high-risk and node-positive disease treated with hypofractionation, including extreme hypofractionation (stereotactic body proton therapy) and pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI), remain limited. We report prospectively collected clinical outcomes from the PRO-Cube registry. Methods and Materials: PRO-Cube is a prospective, single-center registry enrolling men with prostate cancer treated with IG-IMPT across all risk groups using hypofractionation schedules with or without PNI. This analysis included 155 consecutive patients treated definitively using daily cone beam computed tomography-guided robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy. Physician-reported genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) AEs were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0, and PROs were analyzed longitudinally usingEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Prostate Cancer Module - 25 items (EORTC QLQ-PR25) with mixed-effects linear models to characterize temporal symptom trajectories and minimal clinically important difference. Results: Median age was 70 years (IQR, 62-75); 73.6% had high or very high-risk disease, including 24.5% node-positive. Stereotactic body proton therapy was used in 46.5%, PNI in 60%, and androgen deprivation therapy in 87.1% of patients. With a median follow-up of 35.8 months (IQR, 24-52), acute grade ≥2 GU AEs occurred in 23.9%, driven primarily by transient irritative urinary symptoms, while no acute grade ≥2 GI AEs were observed. Cumulative late grade ≥2 GU and GI AEs were infrequent, occurring in 5% and 4.3%, respectively. Severe late AEs (grade ≥3) were rare (<1%). PRO trajectories demonstrated early posttreatment worsening in urinary and bowel symptoms, followed by gradual improvement over time, concordant with physician-reported AEs. No patient-, tumor-, or treatment-related factors were associated with higher AEs or adverse PROs. Conclusions: IG-IMPT demonstrated low rates of physician-reported AEs and favorable PRO trajectories, despite frequent use of hypofractionation and PNI in a predominantly high-risk and node-positive cohort. These findings establish a benchmark for modern intensity modulated proton therapy practice and provide a rationale for prospective comparison with contemporary intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Identifiers

PMID42657230
PMCPMC13508381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.