Table 3.

Summary of studies evaluating SBRT boost schedules.

Author	Year	N	Risk	Median F/U months	Conventional dose	Pelvic nodal RT	ADT use	Boost dose	Platform	Biochemical control	Late toxicity grade ≥3
Miralbell et al. (18)	2010	50	L/I/H	63	64 Gy/32#	56%	66%	10–16 Gy/2#	Linac	5 year 98%	GU 0% GI 10% *
Katz and Kang (6)	2010	73	I/H	33	45 Gy/25#	Yes	49%	19–21 Gy/3#	CK	3 year 89.5% (I) 77.7% (H)	GU 1.4% GI 0% *
Lin et al. (9)	2014	41	H	42	45 Gy/25#	Yes	100%	21 Gy/3#	CK	4 year 91.9%	GU 0% GI 0% ∧
Mercado et al. (5)Paydar et al. (17)	2016	108	I/H	53	45–50.4 Gy/25–28#	No	64%	19.5 Gy/3#	CK	3 year 100% (I) 89.8% (H)	GU 6% GI 1% ∧
Anwar et al. (7)	2016	48	I/H	43	45–50 Gy/25#	Yes	93%	19–21 Gy/2#	CK	3 year 95% 5 year 90%	GU 2% GI 0% ∧
Kim et al. (8)	2017	39	I/H	54	45 Gy/25#	Yes	Nil	21 Gy/3#	CK	5 year 94.7%	GU 0% GI 0% *
Pasquier et al. (10)	2017	76	I	26	46 Gy/23#	No	Nil	18 Gy/3#	CK (60) Linac (16)	2 year 98.7%	GU 0% GI 1.3% ∧
PROMETHEUS	2019	135	I/H	24	46 Gy/23# 36 Gy/12#	8%	54%	19–20 Gy/2#	Linac	2 year 98.6%	GU 2% GI 2% ∧

N, number of patients; L, Low risk; I, Intermediate risk; H, High risk; F/U, follow-up; RT, radiation therapy; #, fractions; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; ^∧, Toxicity graded using CTCAE criteria;

^*, Toxicity graded using RTOG criteria.