Evidence Hub

Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer (HYPO-RT-PC): 10-year outcomes of an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Nilsson P, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, Widmark A, Fransson P, Hoyer M, Lagerlund M, Kindblom J et al.

The Lancet. Oncology, 2026

1,180 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: HYPO-RT-PC is a phase 3 trial comparing ultra-hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in intermediate-to-high-risk localised prostate cancer. This 10-year update reports long-term efficacy and toxicity outcomes.

Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in ten centres in Sweden and two in Denmark, we recruited men aged 75 years or younger with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer and a WHO performance status between 0 and 2. Previous or current androgen deprivation therapy was not permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks). Randomisation was performed with a minimisation algorithm balancing T stage, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, and trial centre. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival, defined as time from randomisation to the first occurrence of biochemical failure, evidence of clinical progression, initiation of androgen deprivation therapy, or death from prostate cancer, analysed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin was 4% at 5 years and had previously been met, corresponding to a critical hazard ratio (HR) limit of 1·338. Toxicity was assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group morbidity scale. Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,180 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