Two-fraction Versus Five-fraction Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: The TOFFEE Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data from Four Prospective Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (5F-SBRT) for prostate cancer (PC), but there is no comparative evidence for fewer fractions. We compare outcomes of prostate two-fraction SBRT (2F-SBRT) and 5F-SBRT using prospective data for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) PC. METHODS: This meta-analysis of individual patient data evaluated IR-PC from four prospective trials of prostate SBRT (two trials each of 2F- and 5F-SBRT). The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BCF). Secondary endpoints included the cumulative incidence of distant metastases (DM) and patient-reported quality of life (QoL). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 199 patients meeting the eligibility criteria, 143 (72%) were in the 5F-SBRT group and 56 (28%) were in the 2F-SBRT group. Median follow-up was 9.4 years. There was no significant difference in BCF with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 3.6% (95% CI 0-8.6%) in the 2F-SBRT group and 6.0% (95% CI 1.8-10.2%) in the 5F-SBRT group (p = 0.73). There was no significant difference in DM incidence. We found no differences in acute and late urinary or bowel QoL. Limitations include the non-randomized comparison. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We report the first prospective comparison of prostate 2F-SBRT and 5F-SBRT. We found no significant difference in efficacy, or in urinary or bowel QoL. This meta-analysis further encourages the potential of 2F-SBRT to be a standard-of-care option for IR PC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".