Whole-pelvic Versus Prostate-only Radiotherapy in Clinically Node-negative High-Risk Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Reconstructed Individual-patient Data.
TL;DR
Current randomised evidence does not demonstrate sufficient benefit to support routine elective pelvic irradiation: WPRT does not improve overall survival, and its apparent benefit in progression-related endpoints is not reproducible across trials.
Abstract
SEARCH STRATEGY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION MEDLINE, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception to May 2026 without language restriction, supplemented by hand-searching the proceedings of major oncology and radiation-oncology congress (2020-2026).
Aims
Whether elective whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) improves outcomes over prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk localised prostate cancer remains an open question. We synthesised all phase 3 randomised trials and added a reconstructed individual-patient-data (IPD) analysis.
Materials And Methods
We included phase III randomised trials of WPRT versus PORT. Trial-reported hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis, and individual-patient data were reconstructed (Guyot algorithm) and pooled. Outcomes were overall survival, biochemical/progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival; risk of bias (RoB 2) and certainty (GRADE) were assessed for each outcome.
Results
Five trials (5172 patients) were included. WPRT did not improve overall survival (HR, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; prediction interval, 0.92 to 1.24; reconstructed-IPD HR, 0.98; 0.80 to 1.20). The apparent benefit in biochemical/progression-free survival (HR, 0.84; 0.54 to 1.29) and metastasis-free survival (HR, 0.92; 0.54 to 1.57) was driven entirely by a single prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-staged, single-centre trial; excluding it, both became null (0.90; 0.77 to 1.06 and 1.00; 0.70 to 1.43). WPRT modestly increased late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal events without a meaningful severe-event excess. Certainty was moderate for overall survival and very low for both biochemical/progression-free and metastasis-free survival.
Conclusion
Current randomised evidence does not demonstrate sufficient benefit to support routine elective pelvic irradiation: WPRT does not improve overall survival, and its apparent benefit in progression-related endpoints is not reproducible across trials. POP-RT identifies a clinically plausible subgroup (patients with very-high nodal-risk who were PSMA-staged) in whom benefit is unproven and requires prospective validation in contemporary randomised trials.