Content area

Abstract

Introduction

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a highly conformal and hypofractionated treatment modality, demonstrating safety and efficacy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Traditionally, high-risk (HR) PCa has been managed with conventional fractionation external beam radiotherapy. Such extended treatment may be burdensome to elderly PCa patients. There is a dearth of long-term patient-reported outcome data for HR PCa patients treated with SBRT. This retrospective study examines cancer control and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in HR PCa patients receiving robotic SBRT.

Materials and methods

HR PCa patients who underwent robotic SBRT treatment (7-7.25 Gy in five fractions over one to two weeks) from December 2008 to July 2023 were included in this retrospective analysis. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix criteria as a rise in PSA of ≥2 ng/mL above the nadir. Patterns of failure were classified as PSA only, local, pelvic node, abdominal node, or bone. Patients completed the 26-item expanded PCa index composite (EPIC)-26 questionnaire at baseline, three, six, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months post radiotherapy. HRQOL domain scores for urinary incontinence, urinary irritative/obstructive, and bowel function were calculated following EPIC-26 scoring guidelines, with higher scores indicating improved quality of life (QOL). Kruskal-Wallis tests and Post-Hoc Dunn Multiple Comparison Tests were employed to examine significant changes within HRQOL domains. Minimally important differences were calculated using 0.5 of a standard deviation at baseline.

Results

A total of 216 patients, with a median age of 75 years, completed the treatment and had a median follow-up of 40 months. Seventy-five percent of patients received androgen deprivation therapy prior to radiotherapy initiation. The three-year biochemical disease-free rate was 89%. Among all recurrences, bone metastases were the most common (34.15%), followed by PSA-only recurrences (24.39%), local recurrences (17.08%), and abdominal and pelvic lymph node involvement (12.2% each). At the initiation of RT, patients exhibited a urinary incontinence domain score of (mean ± SD) 86.04 ± 1.27, a urinary irritative/obstructive domain score of 83.4 ± 1.06, and a bowel domain score of 92.7 ± 0.85. Three years post-treatment, the urinary incontinence domain score decreased to 84.4 ± 1.9, the urinary irritative/obstructive domain score increased to 86.3 ± 1.34, and the bowel domain score decreased to 90.63 ± 1.37. These changes did not reach statistical and/or clinical significance.

Conclusions

At the three-year follow-up mark, favorable cancer control was achieved, and patients had recovered mainly to near baseline urinary and bowel function. SBRT demonstrated excellent tolerability with minimal impact on PCa-specific HRQOL in HR PCa patients. These findings underscore the potential of SBRT as a convenient treatment option for HR PCa, offering promising outcomes and preserving patient QOL.

Full text

Turn on search term navigation

Introduction

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in low-risk (LR) and intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) has demonstrated excellent tumor control with acceptable toxicity [1-3]. Two randomized trials comparing conventionally fractionated versus SBRT revealed comparable rates of physician-reported toxicities and patient-reported outcomes, emphasizing the consistent safety profile of SBRT [4,5]. Five-year biochemical failure-free rates were high in participants who received SBRT and were non-inferior to those of conventional radiotherapy [4,5]. These excellent results have established SBRT as the standard of care for LR and IR PCa patients [6].

The role of SBRT in high-risk (HR) PCa patients is an area of active clinical investigation. Conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (RT) for HR PCa has historically yielded poor cancer control [7]. Dose escalation via brachytherapy or SBRT boost has been utilized in the HR population, resulting in improved biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), but with increased high-grade toxicity, inconvenience, and cost [8-11]. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with RT is recommended in HR patients to improve cancer control [6]. Results from the SHARP consortium showed improved BDFS in HR patients treated with SBRT receiving ADT with estimated four-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates of 82% and 89%, respectively [4]. The incidence of late grade 3 or higher genitourinary and gastrointestinal complications was low at 2.3% and 0.9%, respectively [4].

Robotic SBRT delivers hundreds of individualized non-isocentric beams with a targeting error of less than 1 mm, allowing the safe delivery of highly conformal treatment plans with steep dose gradients [12,13]. Unlike standard image-guided RT, robotic SBRT incorporates a real-time tracking system that provides updated prostate position information to the robot, allowing it to correct the targeting of the therapeutic beam during treatment [14]. This feature enables a reduction in the planning target volume (PTV), thereby better limiting the dose to surrounding critical organs. Recent analysis suggests that this approach may allow for intra-prostatic dose escalation with reduced urinary toxicity [15]. Here, we present our institutional experience with robotic SBRT for HR PCa.

Materials and methods

Patient selection

Patients eligible for inclusion in this retrospective study were those with HR PCa, as classified by D’Amico, who underwent robotic SBRT (CyberKnife, Accuray, Madison, WI) at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital from December 2008 to July 2023 [16]. Exclusion criteria included distant metastasis at baseline, prior pelvic radiotherapy, and/or prior radical prostatectomy. The Georgetown University Institutional Review Board approved this single institutional retrospective review (approval number: 2009-510).

Stereotactic body radiation therapy

Robotic SBRT was delivered as previously described [13,17]. Three to six gold fiducial markers were placed in the prostate. Seven days later, a treatment planning MRI was obtained, followed by a non-contrast simulation CT scan with 1.25 mm slice thickness. Both scans were done with an empty bladder, and patients were advised to have a low-gas, low-motility diet at least five days prior to imaging and treatment delivery. Patients did not take anything orally the night before the simulation, and an enema was administered one to two hours before imaging and treatment. Fused MR and CT scans were then used for treatment planning. The clinical target volume included the prostate, areas of radiographic extracapsular extension, and proximal seminal vesicles to the point where the left and right seminal vesicles separate. The rectum, bladder, and membranous urethra were contoured and evaluated. The SBRT-PTV equaled the clinical target volume, spaced 5 mm to the right and left and 3 mm elsewhere. Patients were treated with an SBRT prescription dose of 35-36.25 Gy to the PTV, which was delivered in five fractions of 7-7.25 Gy. Target position was verified multiple times during each treatment using paired, orthogonal X-ray images with a minimum of three properly placed fiducials. Shared decision-making was utilized to determine the use and duration of ADT [18].

Pretreatment assessment, follow-up, and statistical analysis

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were obtained, and PCa-specific QOL questionnaires were administered before the first SBRT treatment (baseline) and at three months, six months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, and then yearly after completion of RT. PSA nadirs were defined as the lowest PSA prior to failure. If a PSA rose, a digital rectal exam (DRE) was performed, and the best available imaging at the time was obtained as previously described [19]. Imaging studies, such as bone scans, abdominal and pelvic CT scans, and, more recently, PET imaging, were used to identify distant failures. Patterns of failure were classified as PSA only, local, pelvic node, abdominal node, or bone. Biochemical failure was classified as PSA-only if no malignancy was seen on the scan. Local failure was classified as occurring only in the prostate. Lymph node failure was classified as pelvic or abdominal. If bone metastases were identified, the failure was classified as bone independent of nodal status.

The health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domain scores for urinary incontinence, urinary irritative/obstructive, and bowel function were determined by the expanded PCa index composite (EPIC)-26 quality of life (QOL) questionnaire as previously described [20]. Briefly, EPIC scores ranged from 0 to 100, and higher scores indicated improved QOL. Differences in ongoing QOL scores were assessed and compared to the baseline and each follow-up using the Kruskal-Wallis test. This test was used to determine the significance of the difference between nonparametric, ordinal data. The Post-Hoc Dunn Multiple Comparison Test was employed to examine significant changes within HRQOL domains. Minimally important differences were calculated using 0.5 of a standard deviation at baseline.

Results

Patients

Between December 2008 and July 2023, 216 HR PCa patients were treated with robotic SBRT. The median follow-up was 40 months. Table 1 provides a summary of patient characteristics. The median age was 75 years (range: 54-94). Caucasian patients comprised 50% of the subjects, while Black patients accounted for 39% of the subjects. The median pretreatment PSA was 14.2 ng/ml (range: 1.3-148 ng/ml). The median prostate volume was 39 cc (range: 15-186 cc). The median baseline Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was 1, with 9.7% of patients having a CCI score above 3. ADT was administered to 75% of patients for a median duration of 10 months (range: 3-48 months).

Table 1

Patient characteristics

PSA: prostate-specific antigen

DomainPatients (N=216)Percent patient (%)
Age  
<6073
60-695325
70-798439
>807133
Race  
White10750
Black8439
Hispanic42
Other2110
Initial PSA  
<108238
10-205023
>208439
Gleason score  
3 + 3 = 6199
3 + 4 = 72612
4 + 3 = 72311
4 + 4 = 810147
3 + 5 = 884
4 + 5 = 93717
5 + 5 = 1021
Dose  
35 Gy/5 fx3818
35.5 Gy/5 fx21
36.25 Gy/5 fx17681
Hormone  
Yes15675
No5125

Cancer control

In our analysis, a total of 33 recurrences (15% of total subjects) were observed, with 23 (11% of total subjects) occurring within 36 months, indicating a BDFS rate of 89% at three years. Figure 1 shows the BDFS curve, and Table 2 provides the patient characteristics of those who failed treatment. Notably, four recurrences (12% of all recurrences, 2% of total subjects) occurred within the first 12 months (Table 3). The median time to failure was 36 months, with a range of 3 to 121 months. The average initial PSA was 22.9 ng/ml, with an average PSA nadir of 1.82 ng/ml post-treatment and an average PSA at recurrence of 22.03 ng/ml.

Table 2

Characteristics of failure

PSA: prostate-specific antigen, DRE: digital rectal exam

 Average (range)
PSA ng/ml 
Initial22.9 (1.3-6)
Nadir1.82 (0.1-34)
Recurrence22.03 (0.39-429.8)
Time to failure (months)40 (3-131)
 Percent patients N (%)
Gleason score 
G61 (3%)
G78 (24%)
G812 (36%)
G912 (36%)
Dose (Gy) 
356 (18%)
36.2527 (82%)
DRE 
Abnormal18 (55%)
Normal15 (45%)
Pattern of failure 
Bone11 (34.15%)
Local6 (17.08%)
PSA only8 (24.39%)
Abdomen4 (12.2%)
Pelvis4 (12.2%)

Table 3

Clinical characteristics of patients who experienced PSA recurrence after being treated with SBRT

PSA: prostate-specific antigen, SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy, ADT: androgen deprivation therapy, DRE: digital rectal exam, BS: bone scan, MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, CT: computed tomography, PET: positron emission tomography, PSMA: prostate-specific membrane antigen

IDiPSAStageGleasonStaging imagingDoseADTPSA nadirTime to failurePSA recurrenceDRERecurrence imagingPattern of failureRadiotherapy
150T3aG7BS, MRI36.25Y0.1245.6AbnormalBS, CTAbdN
220T2cG9MRI35N1.7363.8--PSA onlyN
331.8T2aG6BS, CT, MRI36.25Y0.6243.9NormalBSBoneCurative
432.5T1cG7MRI36.25N0.5963.2NormalCholine, C-11, PET, axuminAbdN
538T2bG9BS, MRI36.25Y0.35243.94Normal-PSA onlyN
615.5T2bG9BS, CT, MRI36.25Y0.1483.0AbnormalAxumin, MRI, PSMABone, localN
720.4T1cG7MRI36.25N6.8911NormalBS, CTBoneCurative
847T2G9BS, CT36.25Y<0.1365.1AbnormalPSMALocalN
96.8T2cG8-35Y0.1244Abnormal-PSA onlyN
108.4T2aG8-36.25Y0.5214.8NormalBSBoneCurative
1154T2bG9MRI36.25N0.9132.8AbnormalBS, CTBone, pelvisN
1212.6T1cG8BS, CT, MRI36.25Y0.1242.3AbnormalBS, CTPSA onlyN
131.3T2aG8MRI36.25N1.23482.6AbnormalAxuminAbd, bone, pelvisCurative
147.9T2bG8-36.25Y0.6183.1AbnormalBiopsy, BS, MRIBone, pelvisPalliative
1525.4T2aG7CT36.25Y2.23624NormalBS, MRIBone, localCurative
1610.3T2bG9BS35Y0.1362.2Abnormal-PSA onlyN
1740T2cG8BS36.25Y<0.1183.9AbnormalBSPSA onlyN
1817T2bG8-35N0.9422.9NormalBSBoneN
198.3T2cG7MRI36.25N0.221314.3AbnormalAxuminPSA onlyN
2060T2bG7MRI36.25Y3.63655.7NormalMRILocalN
2131.6T1cG7BS, MRI36.25Y0.190429.8NormalBS, CTPSA onlyN
2246.1T2bG8BS, CT, MRI35Y34361.9AbnormalBSBonePalliative
235.5T1cG9MRI36.25Y0.1505.27NormalMRI, CT, BSBone, localN
248.5T2cG9BS36.25Y1.636.2AbnormalBS, CTBoneN
254.3T1cG8CT, MRI36.25Y<0.13636.6NormalBS, PSMAAbd, pelvisN
264.7T2aG9BS, CT36.25Y<0.11040.39NormalPSMAAbdCurative
2737.5T2aG8BS, MRI36.25N0.8803.1NormalMRI, PSMALocalN
2817.6T1cG9MRI36.25N1643.2NormalMRILocalN
2920.3T2cG9-35Y0.8248.8AbnormalBSBoneNo
304.8T1bG9BS, MRI36.25Y0.4262.9-PSMAPelvisCurative
3122.4T2cG8BS, CT36.25Y0.166.3AbnormalBSBoneN
3238T2bG7BS36.25Y0.2365.1--PSA onlyN
337.9T1cG8BS36.25Y<0.1565.2NormalMRIPSA onlyN

Figure 1

Biochemical control for HR PCa receiving SBRT at three-year follow-up

SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy, HR PCa: high-risk prostate cancer

Recurrence characteristics

Among all recurrences, bone metastases were the most common (34.15%), followed by PSA-only recurrences (24.39%), local recurrences (17.08%), and abdominal and pelvic lymph node involvement (12.2% each) (Table 2, Figure 2). There were no isolated seminal vesicle recurrences. High-grade disease was common, with Gleason scores of 8 and 9 accounting for 36% of recurrences each, Gleason 7 in 24%, and Gleason 6 in only 3%. ADT was used in 70% of recurrent cases, while 30% did not receive ADT. On clinical examination during recurrence follow-up, 47% had normal DRE findings and 53% had abnormal DREs.

Figure 2

Failure patterns after SBRT in HR PCa

Types of failure in HR PCa after five-fraction SBRT, alongside ADT use (yes/no) for each failure type

SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy, HR PCa: high-risk prostate cancer, ADT: androgen deprivation therapy, PSA: prostate-specific antigen

Quality of life

Figure 3 shows QOL following robotic SBRT. The study found that the mean urinary incontinence function score decreased slightly from 86.04 at baseline to 84.4 at the 36-month follow-up (p>0.05). Weak stream (14%) and frequency (24%) were the most common symptoms in the urinary irritative/obstructive domain. Similarly, the mean bowel function score showed a minor reduction from 92.7 at baseline to 90.6 at 36 months, without statistical significance (p>0.05). Bowel symptoms were less frequent than urinary symptoms, with urgency ranging from 5% to 7% over the study period, peaking at 7% at six months. The percentage of patients reporting bowel frequency increased from 3% at baseline to a peak of 8% at 18 months.

Figure 3

Average EPIC domain scores at baseline and follow up for HR PCa patients after receiving SBRT

(A) EPIC GU incontinence domain. (B) EPIC GU irritative/obstructive domain. (C) EPIC bowel domain. The upper and lower thresholds represent clinically significant changes in score ( ½ SD). EPIC scores range from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a more favorable QOL.

EPIC: expanded prostate cancer index composite, SBRT: stereotactic body radiation therapy, GU: genitourinary, QOL: quality of life, SD: standard deviation, HR PCa: high-risk prostate cancer

Discussion

This study aimed to assess failure patterns and QOL metrics in a cohort of HRPC patients who received robotic SBRT without elective pelvic irradiation. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that definitive prostate SBRT for localized HRPC may have similar outcomes for patients while sparing them elective pelvic radiation dose. Our study saw favorable local disease control, with a three-year BDFS of 89%. These numbers are consistent with those of the SHARP consortium, which assessed a group of HRPC patients who also underwent definitive prostate SBRT [21]. We found that local failures constituted 21% of the total three-year recurrences, suggesting that BDFS could be higher with higher prescription doses. A growing body of evidence indicates that dose escalation to the DIL, or the prostate as a whole, significantly improves local control, and our findings support these data [22-24]. Staging PSMA-PET scans, with their emerging prominence in diagnosing and localizing HR primary PCa and recurrent disease, could help us safely escalate doses for our patients.

Pelvic lymph node recurrence constituted only 15% of our failures. This suggests elective nodal irradiation (ENI) would not have improved the clinical outcomes of most of our cohort by the three-year follow-up. Indeed, the literature regarding elective pelvic ENI remains controversial, showing mixed benefits [25]. Additionally, those who undergo whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) usually experience much higher rates of gastrointestinal toxicity in the long term. The POP-RT trial shows improved short-term BDFS with WPRT; however, most of these patients underwent pre-treatment PSMA imaging to rule out metastases or locoregional spread [26]. Our patients did not undergo PSMA imaging during initial staging, so it is difficult to apply the POP-RT results to our cohort. It is possible that had our patients undergone PSMA imaging prior to treatment, pelvic nodal metastases could have been identified, in which case these would not be considered failures from the omission of pelvic ENI. Furthermore, abdominal lymph node recurrence constituted 12.2% of our total failures, a proportion that is favorably small. These failures would likely not have been impacted by WPRT.

Our cohort had a relatively large proportion of patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who faced numerous social challenges. Many of our patients had difficulty with transportation and social support. A large proportion were frail. These patients likely would have had difficulty with a several-week regimen of daily RT. Our results can therefore be applied to these populations, demonstrating that five-fraction SBRT remains a highly favorable option, even for HR PCa. Recent data suggest that ultrahypofractionated elective pelvic nodal irradiation (25 Gy in five fractions) is safe and effective at preventing pelvic nodal recurrences [27]. The inability to treat the prostate and pelvic nodes simultaneously is a known limitation of robotic SBRT [28].

Despite highlighting the favorable outcomes associated with hypofractionated SBRT in HR PCa patients, we acknowledge the limitations inherent in our retrospective study design and reliance on patient-reported outcomes. Notably, the absence of stratification and propensity-matched scoring warrants further exploration in future research to validate these findings. There was variability in initial imaging during the staging and workup of each patient, affecting cohort uniformity.

Conclusions

Definitive prostate SBRT for localized HRPC has been shown to yield similar short-term oncologic outcomes to the current standard of care while still affording patients an excellent QOL. We see non-significant decreases in the gastrointestinal and genitourinary EPIC domain scores, suggesting that this treatment yields minimal long-term toxicity at three-year follow-up. We also note that only 12.2% of treatment failures occurred in the pelvis, prompting us to question the cost-benefit utility of electively irradiating the pelvis in the first place. Prostate SBRT spares this dose to the pelvis while still allowing the possibility for future salvage RT if locoregional failure occurs. While the idea of elective pelvic nodal irradiation remains controversial in the HR patient population, our data support local definitive treatment as a favorable option. This option should be especially considered for patients who are at a higher risk of missing treatments or who prefer a shorter course.

1 Tumor control probability modeling and systematic review of the literature of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Royce, TJ; Mavroidis, P; Wang, K et al. pp. 227-236.110, 2021; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32900561]

2 Multicenter trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: survival and toxicity endpoints. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Meier, RM; Bloch, DA; Cotrutz, C et al. pp. 296-303.102, 2018; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30191864]

3 Long-term outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. JAMA Netw Open; Kishan, AU; Dang, A; Katz, AJ et al. 188006 2, 2019.

4 Phase 3 trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med; van As, N; Griffin, C; Tree, A et al. pp. 1413-1425.391, 2024; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39413377]

5 Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet; Widmark, A; Gunnlaugsson, A; Beckman, L et al. pp. 385-395.10196, 2019.

6 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. 3 2025; .2025; https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail

7 Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Zelefsky, MJ; Levin, EJ; Hunt, M; Yamada, Y; Shippy, AM; Jackson, A; Amols, HI. pp. 1124-1129.70, 2008; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313526]

8 Brachytherapy boost improves survival and decreases risk of developing distant metastases compared to external beam radiotherapy alone in intermediate and high risk group prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol; Miszczyk, M; Magrowski, Ł; Krzysztofiak, T et al. 109632 183, 2023; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36963442]

9 Ascende-RT: an analysis of treatment-related morbidity for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost with a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Rodda, S; Tyldesley, S; Morris, WJ et al. pp. 286-295.98, 2017; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28433432]

10 Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer: a report on 3-year toxicity. Front Oncol; Paydar, I; Pepin, A; Cyr, RA et al. 5 7, 2017; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28224113]

11 Stereotactic body radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in combination with intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution propensity score matched analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Chen, WC; Li, Y; Lazar, A et al. pp. 429-437.110, 2021; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33385496]

12 Dose gradient near target-normal structure interface for nonisocentric CyberKnife and isocentric intensity-modulated body radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Hossain, S; Xia, P; Huang, K et al. pp. 58-63.78, 2010; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20133073]

13 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Georgetown University experience. Radiat Oncol; Chen, LN; Suy, S; Uhm, S et al. 58 8, 2013; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497695]

14 Intrafractional motion of the prostate during hypofractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Xie, Y; Djajaputra, D; King, CR; Hossain, S; Ma, L; Xing, L. pp. 236-246.72, 2008; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18722274]

15 Dosimetric comparison of CyberKnife and conventional linac prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy plans: analysis of the pace-B study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Ratnakumaran, R; Sasitharan, A; Khan, A et al. 2025.

16 Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA; D'Amico, AV; Whittington, R; Malkowicz, SB et al. pp. 969-974.280, 1998; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9749478]

17 Six-dimensional correction of intra-fractional prostate motion with CyberKnife stereotactic body radiation therapy. Front Oncol; Lei, S; Piel, N; Oermann, EK et al. 48 1, 2011; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22655248]

18 Utilization of patient-reported outcomes to assess adherence to relugolix when combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy for intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. Front Oncol; Gaudian, K; Koh, MJ; Koh, MJ et al. 1540482 15, 2025; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39949742]

19 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer in men with a high baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ≥ 15). Front Oncol; Aghdam, N; Pepin, A; Buchberger, D et al. 1060 10, 2020; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32719744]

20 Patient-reported outcomes following stereotactic body radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol; Bhattasali, O; Chen, LN; Woo, J et al. 52 9, 2014; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24512837]

21 Stereotactic body radiotherapy for high-risk localized carcinoma of the prostate (Sharp) Consortium: analysis of 344 prospectively treated patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; van Dams, R; Jiang, NY; Fuller, DB et al. pp. 731-737.110, 2021; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33493615]

22 Local failure after prostate SBRT predominantly occurs in the PI-RADS 4 or 5 dominant intraprostatic lesion. Eur Urol Oncol; Gorovets, D; Wibmer, AG; Moore, A et al. pp. 275-281.6, 2023; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35307323]

23 Focal boost to the intraprostatic tumor in external beam radiotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer: results from the flame randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol; Kerkmeijer, LG; Groen, VH; Pos, FJ et al. pp. 787-796.39, 2021; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33471548]

24 Stereotactic body radiotherapy with a focal boost to the intraprostatic tumor for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: 5-year efficacy and toxicity in the hypo-FLAME trial. Radiother Oncol; Draulans, C; Haustermans, K; Pos, FJ et al. 110568 201, 2024; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39362607]

25 Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol; Roach, M; Moughan, J; Lawton, CA et al. pp. 1504-1515.19, 2018; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316827]

26 Prostate-only versus whole-pelvic radiation therapy in high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer (pop-RT): outcomes from phase III randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol; Murthy, V; Maitre, P; Kannan, S et al. pp. 1234-1242.39, 2021; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33497252]

27 Pelvic regional control with 25 Gy in 5 fractions in stereotactic radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: pooled prospective outcomes from the sharp consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; Murthy, V; Mallick, I; Maitre, P et al. pp. 93-98.122, 2025; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39755216]

28 Intensity modulated radiation therapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy boost for unfavorable prostate cancer: five-year outcomes. Front Oncol; Carrasquilla, M; Sholklapper, T; Pepin, AN et al. 1240939 13, 2023; [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38074646]

Copyright © 2025, Sharma et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.