Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie · September 25, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Abstract Purpose This study aimed to prospectively compare clinician-reported acute toxicity and patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between daily cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with moderate hypofractionation. Materials and methods In this prospective study, 74 patients with localized prostate cancer received either CBCT-based oART ( n = 43) or CBCT-based IGRT ( n = 31) with 62/57.6/48 Gy in 20 fractions, allocated pragmatically by convenience. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was assessed weekly using CTCAE v5.0, and HRQoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline and the end of therapy. Between-group differences were tested using Boschloo’s exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and t -tests; temporal and between-group changes were evaluated based on minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs). Results Baseline patient and treatment characteristics were similar, except for more high-/very high-risk tumors in the oART group (40.5% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.03). Online ART was associated with more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity, reflected by lower maximum toxicity grades ( p = 0.028). Maximum genitourinary toxicity was comparable between groups ( p = 0.793). More IGRT patients exceeded MCID thresholds for fatigue (74% vs. 37%; p = 0.004), physical functioning (27% vs. 3%; p = 0.009), and role functioning (48.1% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.04). Differences for global health, pain, social function, and diarrhea were not statistically significant but consistently favored oART. Conclusion Daily CBCT-based oART and IGRT were both well tolerated, with low rates of high-grade acute toxicity. In this exploratory analysis, oART was associated with a more favorable GI toxicity profile and better preservation of HRQoL. These hypothesis-generating findings suggest that adaptive workflows may provide measurable patient-centered benefits during prostate radiotherapy and warrant confirmation in larger prospective studies.