Commentary: Acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with moderately vs ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy - Summary - MDSpire

Analysis of Acute and Long-Term Toxicity in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Moderately Versus Ultra-Hypofractionated Radiotherapy

  • By

  • Toufic Eid

  • Tarek Al-Bitar

  • Osama Mohamad

  • July 20, 2026

Share

Objective:

To compare acute and long-term toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) versus ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT).

Approach:
  • Study Design: Real-world comparison of toxicity in 229 localized prostate cancer patients treated in Colombia.
  • Data Comparison: Comparison of findings with the PACE-C trial, which is a phase 3 randomized trial.
Key Findings:
  • Acute grade >=2 genitourinary toxicity was similar between UHRT and MHRT in the PACE-C trial (28% vs. 27%, p = 0.89).
  • Cifuentes-Quin et al. reported lower acute toxicity for UHRT compared to MHRT (11.63% vs. 25.17%, p = 0.013).
  • Late toxicity analysis did not include fractionation schedule, complicating interpretation.
  • Baseline urinary medication use was imbalanced between groups (18.88% in MHRT vs. 0% in UHRT, p < 0.001).
  • Sample size was asymmetrical (143 MHRT vs. 86 UHRT), affecting statistical power.
  • Technical delivery details indicated no fiducial markers were used for UHRT, raising questions about patient selection bias.
  • Lack of prostate CTV volume data limits interpretation of urinary toxicity outcomes.
  • ADT use differed between groups (97.20% in MHRT vs. 90.70% in UHRT, p = 0.024), potentially affecting toxicity.
Interpretation:

Observed differences in toxicity may reflect baseline differences between groups rather than the fractionation schedule alone.

Limitations:
  • Exclusion of fractionation schedule from multivariable analysis of late toxicity.
  • Statistical model presented as exploratory without validation metrics.
  • Imbalance in baseline urinary medication use could confound results.
  • Smaller UHRT cohort limits statistical power and stability of event rates.
  • Technical delivery methods may introduce selection bias affecting toxicity outcomes.
  • Lack of prostate CTV volume data complicates understanding of urinary toxicity.
  • Differences in ADT use could influence urinary and sexual toxicity outcomes.
Conclusion:

The study provides insights into toxicity differences but has limitations that complicate interpretation.

Sources:

Original Source(s)

Related Content