↓ Skip to main content

Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
535 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
390 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, March 2017
DOI 10.1200/jco.2016.71.7397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles N Catton, Himu Lukka, Chu-Shu Gu, Jarad M Martin, Stéphane Supiot, Peter W M Chung, Glenn S Bauman, Jean-Paul Bahary, Shahida Ahmed, Patrick Cheung, Keen Hun Tai, Jackson S Wu, Matthew B Parliament, Theodoros Tsakiridis, Tom B Corbett, Colin Tang, Ian S Dayes, Padraig Warde, Tim K Craig, Jim A Julian, Mark N Levine

Abstract

Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 387 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 64 16%
Other 49 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 11%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Student > Master 27 7%
Other 90 23%
Unknown 92 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 209 54%
Physics and Astronomy 12 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 30 8%
Unknown 118 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2022.
All research outputs
#271,496
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#490
of 22,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,788
of 322,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#19
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 293 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.