본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography Guidance for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: 2-year Outcomes from the MIRAGE Randomized Clinical Trial.

European urology 2025 Vol.87(6) p. 622-625

Kishan AU, Lamb JM, Wilhalme H, Casado M, Chong N, Zello L, Juarez JE, Jiang T, Neilsen BK, Low DA, Yang Y, Neylon J, Basehart V, Martin Ma T, Valle LF, Cao M, Steinberg ML

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

It has been shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance versus computed tomography (CT) guidance for aggressive margin-reduction (AMR) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in prostate ca

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • p-value p = 0.004
  • p-value p = 0.025
  • 95% CI 41-63

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Kishan AU, Lamb JM, et al. (2025). Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography Guidance for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: 2-year Outcomes from the MIRAGE Randomized Clinical Trial.. European urology, 87(6), 622-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.10.026
MLA Kishan AU, et al.. "Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography Guidance for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: 2-year Outcomes from the MIRAGE Randomized Clinical Trial.." European urology, vol. 87, no. 6, 2025, pp. 622-625.
PMID 39537438

Abstract

It has been shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance versus computed tomography (CT) guidance for aggressive margin-reduction (AMR) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer reduces acute toxicity, but the longer-term benefits are unknown. We performed a secondary analysis of MIRAGE, a phase 3 randomized clinical trial of MRI-guided SBRT for prostate cancer, to determine whether AMR with MRI guidance significantly reduced 2-yr physician-scored or patient-reported toxic effects in comparison to CT guidance. The cumulative incidence of 2-yr physician-scored toxicity, defined as grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxic effects according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03, were lower with MRI guidance. Cumulative incidence rates of late grade ≥2 toxicity at 2 yr with MRI-guided versus CT-guided SBRT were 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-39%)] versus 51% (95% CI 41-63%) for GU toxicity (p = 0.004), and 1.4% (95% CI 0.2-9.6) versus 9.5% (95% CI 4.6-19) for GI toxicity (p = 0.025). Cumulative logistic regression revealed that MRI-guided SBRT was associated with significantly lower odds of a clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function according to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 score (odds ratio 0.444, 95% CI 0.209-0.942; p = 0.035) and in the Sexual Health Inventory in Men score (odds ratio 0.366, 95% CI 0.148-0.906; p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in the odds of a deterioration for other quality-of-life metrics. These findings support the hypothesis that aggressive planning for margin reduction for prostate SBRT using MRI leads to continued reductions in toxic effects over 2-yr follow-up. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier as NCT04384770.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiosurgery; Aged; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Treatment Outcome; Middle Aged; Time Factors; Radiotherapy, Image-Guided; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (4)