Table 4.
Primary disease and treatment characteristics for EBRT studies.
| First author/ country | Year | Design | Pts (n) | PSA (range) (ng/mL) | ISUP | GS | % GS (≤7) | % GS (≥8) | T stage | % T stage (≤T2a) | % T stage (≥T2b) | Risk Class | Primary treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leroy (France) | 2017 | R | 23 | 10.38 (2.34-57) | 2/3 | 7 | 82.5 | 4.3 | T2 | 65.2 | 30.4 | NR | EBRT, BT | ||
| Fuller (USA) | 2020 | P | 50 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | EBRT, BT, RP | ||
| Jereczek-Fossa (Italy) | 2018 | R | 64 | 11.4 (0.5-228.5) | 2/3 | 7 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | EBRT, BT | ||
| Loi (Italy) | 2018 | R | 50 | 10 (3.1-160) | NR | NR | 70 | 30 | NR | NR | NR | High | EBRT, RP+EBRT | ||
| D'Agostino (Italy) | 2019 | R | 23 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | RP+EBRT, EBRT | ||
| Pasquier (France) | 2019 | R | 100 | 10.2 (2.3-120) | 1 | 6 | 93 | 7 | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT | ||
| Scher (France) | 2019 | R | 42 | 10.1 (3-120) | 2/3 | 7 | 82 | 18 | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT, RP+EBRT | ||
| Cuccia (Italy) | 2020 | R | 24 | NR | 3 | 7 | 79 | 21 | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT, BT | ||
| Matrone (Italy) | 2020 | R | 44 | 8.7 (2.6-46) | 2/3 | 7a | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | High | EBRT | ||
| Caroli (Italy) | 2020 | R | 38 | NR | 2 | 7 | 100 | 0 | T3 | 42.1 | 57.9 | NR | EBRT, RP+EBRT | ||
| Bergamin (Australia) | 2020 | P | 25 | 13 (4.1-97) | 2 | 7 | 72 | 28 | T2a | 80 | 20 | Intermediate | EBRT, BT | ||
BT, brachytherapy; HDR, high dose rate; LDR, low dose rate; R, retrospective; P, prospective; Pts, patients; n, number; PSA, prostate specific antigen; NR, not recorded; GS, Gleason score; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; PBT, proton beam treatment; RP, radical prostatectomy.
For PSA, ISUP and GS, the median scores are presented.