Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026
Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
Published on: October 6, 2023
Prospective controlled study comparing patient-reported outcomes after daily online adaptive radiotherapy or
Goda Kalinauskaite1,2,3,4, Luise A Künzel1,3,4, Kerstin Rubarth5,3,4
1Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Purpose:
To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients treated either with cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) or with CBCT-guided conventional image guided radiotherapy (IGRT).
Materials And Methods:
In this prospective study with convenience allocation, patients with localized prostate cancer received 62 Gy/20 fractions using either daily CBCT-based oART or CBCT-guided conventional IGRT. PROMs (EPIC, QLQ-PR25, IPSS, NCI-PRO-CTCAE) were collected at baseline and at end of therapy. Changes in scores and clinically meaningful deterioration, based on established minimal clinically important differences (MCID), were analyzed.
Results:
Seventy-four patients were included (oART: 58.1 %; IGRT: 41.9 %). Groups were demographically similar, although the oART group included more patients with high-risk tumors (40.5 % vs. 9.7 %, p = 0.03). Patients after oART tended to experience smaller, although not statistically significant, declines in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains compared to IGRT: EPIC urinary summary (-12.15 vs -20.57, p = 0.07), urinary function (-9.53 vs -17.47, p = 0.05), urinary incontinence (-5.47 vs -13.93, p = 0.07) and PR25 urinary symptom (20.0 vs. 27.5, p = 0.06). EPIC bowel function decline was also less pronounced (-12.64 vs. -19.78, p = 0.10). NCI-PRO-CTCAE scores favored oART for reduced urinary urgency (0.95 vs. 1.57, p = 0.02) and fecal incontinence (0.03 vs. 0.71, p = 0.02). Fewer oART patients reached MCID thresholds for urinary (8-21 %) and bowel (20-23 %) deterioration, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusion:
Our results suggest a small but consistent trend in PROM scores favoring oART over conventional IGRT. In addition, the results may inform the design of controlled randomized trials in the future.
