Evidence Hub

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for PSMA-PET/CT staged, oligometastatic prostate cancer - A multi-centre study

Schupak I, Chao M, Guerrieri M, Ho H, Udovicich C, Ong WL, Starmans M, Tacey M et al.

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2026

213 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC) has proven a topic of emerging interest in the paradigm shift from palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to metastasis-directed therapy. In this study, we aim to evaluate and report on biochemical and clinical outcomes for omPC patients treated with SABR.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a multi-centre, retrospective case series of patients undergoing SABR for omPC from 2015 to 2019 inclusive, staged with PSMA-PET/CT. Concurrent ADT was permitted. Patients with synchronous metastatic disease receiving radiotherapy to primary within 12 months of SABR were excluded. The primary endpoint was biochemical failure-free survival (BCFFS). Secondary endpoints included: PSA response at 6 months, clinical failure-free survival (CFFS), defined by a 2nd course of SABR, commencing ADT, palliative radiotherapy, systemic therapy or changing current line of therapy; ADT-free survival (FS) was calculated in the SABR only cohort.

RESULTS: 213 patients were included for analysis. 41.3 % of SABR was delivered to bone and 49.3 % to nodal metastases, with 28 patients (13.1 %) having SABR together with ADT. Median follow-up was 57.6 months (IQR 45.8-72.6). BCFFS at 12, 24 and 36 months was: 45.6 % (95 %CI: 38.7-52.2 %), 26.2 % (95 %CI: 20.4-32.4 %) and 18.8 % (95 %CI: 13.7-24.5 %), respectively. CFFS at 12, 24 and 36 months was: 71.4 % (95 %CI: 64.7-77.0 %), 50.4 % (95 %CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 213 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free