Cochrane · systematic review · CD011462
Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer
Hickey, BE, James, ML, Daly, T, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
UrologyAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 3 · 42.9%High 1 · 14.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Altered fraction schedules compared to conventional fractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer
Population: clinically localized prostate cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prostate cancer‐specific survival Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | HR 1 [0.72, 1.39] | 8 studies · 7946 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Late gastrointestinal RT toxicity ≥ Grade II RTOG/EORTC Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | RR 1.1 [0.68, 1.78] | 4 studies · 3843 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Late genitourinary RT toxicity ≥ Grade II RTOG/EORTC Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | RR 1.05 [0.93, 1.18] | 4 studies · 3843 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Overall survival Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | HR 0.94 [0.83, 1.07] | 10 studies · 8243 participants | High |
Metastasis‐free survival Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | HR 1.07 [0.65, 1.76] | 5 studies · 4985 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Biochemical relapse‐free survival Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | HR 0.88 [0.68, 1.13] | 5 studies · 2889 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Acute GU RT toxicity Altered fraction schedules vs conventional fractionation | RR 1.03 [0.95, 1.11] | 4 studies · 4174 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |