MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (HYDRA): An individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials in the MARCAP consortium.

2025· article· en· W4407700563 on OpenAlexaff
Amar U. Kishan, Yilun Sun, D.P. Dearnaley, Emma Hall, Alison Tree, Charles Catton, Himanshu Lukka, W. Robert Lee, Howard M. Sandler, Luca Incrocci, Wilma D. Heemsbergen, J.K. Wong, Eric M. Horwitz, Karen E. Hoffman, Comron Hassanzadeh, Deborah A. Kuban, Giuseppe Sanguineti, Stefano Arcangeli, John Nikitas, Daniel E. Spratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadiation therapyMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialOncologyLernaean HydraProstateCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

385 Background: Trials comparing moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHFRT) against conventionally-fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for prostate cancer have varied considerably in intent (non-inferiority vs. superiority) and MHFRT dose. Herein, we compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles of isodose MHFRT and dose-escalated MHFRT. Methods: Individual patient data were obtained from 7 phase III trials comparing MHFRT vs. CFRT: three (n=3454) with isodose and four (n=2426) with dose-escalated MHFRT. Meta-analyses were designed to compare progression-free survival (PFS), late grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) and late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) physician-scored toxicity, and clinically-significant decrements in patient-reported urinary or bowel quality of life (QOL). Results: After a median follow-up of 5.4 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4.6-7.2) and 7.1 years (IQR 5.7-8.4) following isodose and dose-escalated MHFRT, there were no differences in PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95%CI 0.81-1.05 and HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.82-1.09, respectively). Neither isodose nor dose-escalated MHFRT were associated with increased odds of grade ≥2 GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.16 95CI% 0.86-1.57 and OR 1.20, 95%CI 0.95-1.51). The odds of grade ≥2 GI toxicity were higher with dose-escalated (OR 1.48, 95%CI 1.14-1.92) but not isodose MHFRT (OR 1.30, 95% 0.59-2.87). Isodose MHFRT did not show different odds of urinary (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.51-2.09) and bowel (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.40-1.43) QOL decrements, while dose-escalated MHFRT was associated with greater odds of bowel (OR 1.68, 95%CI 1.07-2.61), but not urinary (OR 1.57, 95%CI 0.87-2.85), QOL decrement. Conclusions: Isodose MHFRT and dose-escalated MHFRT both have similar efficacy compared with CFRT, but dose-escalated MHFRT is associated with higher physician-scored and patient-reported bowel and urinary toxicity. Isodose regimens, e.g. 60 Gy in 20 fractions, should be the standard MHFRT regimen for localized prostate cancer.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.041
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.475
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→