Evidence Hub

Patient reported outcomes following MR-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J. M. Westerhoff, T. Lalmahomed, L. Meijers, L. Henke, F. Teunissen, A. Bruynzeel, F. Alongi, W. Hall et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2024

897 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

This systematic review provides an overview of literature on the impact of MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) on patient reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in October 2023 in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The PICOS framework (i.e., patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) was used to determine eligibility criteria. Included were studies assessing PROs following MRgRT for PC with sample size >10. Methodological quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2. Relevant mean differences (MD) compared to pre-RT were interpreted using minimal important differences (MID). Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2-statistic.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies and one randomized controlled trial (n=897) were included. Nine studies included patients with primary PC with MRgRT as first-line treatment (n=813) and three with MRgRT as second-line treatment (n=84). Substantial risk of bias was found in five studies. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25 scores were pooled from three studies, and EPIC-26 scores from four studies. Relevant MDs for the urinary domain were found with the EPIC-26 (MD-10.0 [95%CI -12.0 - -8.1]; I20%) and the EORTC QLQ-PR25 (MD8.6 [95%CI -4.7-22.0]; I297%), both at end-RT to one month follow-up. Relevant MDs for the bowel domain were found with the EPIC-26 (MD-4.7 [95%CI -9.2 - -0.2]; I282%), at…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 897 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