Primary Analysis of (NCT03380806) a Phase II Randomized Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Boost Versus Conventional Fractionation External Beam Radiotherapy Boost in Unfavorable‐Intermediate and High‐Risk Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer involves androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with pelvic conventional fractionation (CF) external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and a CF-EBRT or brachytherapy boost to the prostate. This trial compared CF-EBRT boost with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) boost after pelvic CF-EBRT. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive a boost using either CF-EBRT (32-34 Gy in 15-17 fractions) or SBRT (19.5-21 Gy in three weekly fractions) following pelvic CF-EBRT (45-46 Gy in 23-25 fractions). The primary objective was to assess early (3-month post-radiotherapy) gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) quality of life (QoL), using the expanded prostate index composite (EPIC) score. Secondary objectives included long-term QoL, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) changes, toxicity assessments, and long-term disease control outcomes. Linear regression and Fisher's exact test were used for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients randomized, 53 received CF-EBRT, and 47 received SBRT. After a mean follow-up of 18.5 months, no significant differences were observed in EPIC score changes between CF-EBRT and SBRT at 3 months posttreatment for urinary (11.5 vs. 8.6, p = 0.23), bowel (5.2 vs. 6.4, p = 0.57), and overall QoL (8.3 vs. 7.5, p = 0.61). IPSS scores were similar (p = 0.11), and CTCAE v.5.0 toxicity rates were comparable, with an odds ratio of 0.90 (p > 0.99). Biochemical failure rates were under 5% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized trial to report QoL outcomes after SBRT boost radiotherapy in patients with unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. SBRT boost after pelvic CF-EBRT is well-tolerated and demonstrates comparable outcomes in QoL and toxicity to the CF-EBRT boost. Further follow-up is needed to assess the long-term effects on QoL, toxicity, and disease control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03380806.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".