2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hyprofractionated Versus Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Patients with Intermediate- or High-Risk, Localized, Prostate Cancer: 7-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase 3 HYPRO Trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As previously described for this data set [16] , high-risk patients (Gleason 8) in the HF arm experienced significantly fewer local recurrences than in the CF arm, even though there was no difference in overall failure free survival. This suggests that for a high-risk subgroup the HF scheme may be more effective to treat the primary tumor (receiving full dose prescription), but at the same time perhaps less effective at eradicating subclinical disease receiving intermediate levels of incidental dose.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As previously described for this data set [16] , high-risk patients (Gleason 8) in the HF arm experienced significantly fewer local recurrences than in the CF arm, even though there was no difference in overall failure free survival. This suggests that for a high-risk subgroup the HF scheme may be more effective to treat the primary tumor (receiving full dose prescription), but at the same time perhaps less effective at eradicating subclinical disease receiving intermediate levels of incidental dose.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…For our analysis we considered patients with sufficient follow-up from the updated database [16] and available treatment planning CT and 3D dose distribution, at intermediate (CF: 90 patients, HF: 86 patients) and high prognostic risk (CF: 249 patients, HF: 241 patients), analyzing in total 666 out of the 804 patients (83%) of the total HYPRO study population previously available for relapse-free survival analysis. Relapse was defined as biochemical relapse, clinical relapse, locoregional or distant relapse, or start with hormonal therapy, whichever happened first.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These RT-technological and technical advances have allowed clinicians to deliver higher radiation doses to the target with similarly limited toxicities. To date, moderate PC hypofractionation represents the standard of care [7,8]. Moreover, since 2014, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines [9] have stated that, in centers with appropriate technology and expertise, extreme hypofractionated treatment could be considered as a potential option to offer for selected localized PC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This means that irradiating with doses per fraction greater than conventional fractionation (CF) would deliver a greater biologically equivalent dose (BED) to the prostate, without significantly increasing late normal tissue toxicity. The outcomes of studies employing doseescalated CF (78-81 Gy) [1] are comparable with those of moderate hypofractionation (MH; 2.4-4 Gy per fraction) [2][3]. In recent years, multiple phase two and phase three studies employing extreme hypofractionation (EH; ≥5 Gy per fraction) have also reported excellent control rates with acceptable bladder and rectal toxicity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%