Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 410

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial

Open access
Parker, Christopher C, Clarke, Noel W, Cook, Adrian D, Kynaston, Howard G, Petersen, Peter Meidahl, Catton, Charles, Cross, William, Logue, John, Parulekar, Wendy, Payne, Heather, Persad, Rajendra, Pickering, Holly, Saad, Fred, Anderson, Juliette, Bahl, Amit, Bottomley, David, Brasso, Klaus, Chahal, Rohit, Cooke, Peter W, Eddy, Ben, Gibbs, Stephanie, Goh, Chee, Gujral, Sandeep, Heath, Catherine, Henderson, Alastair, Jaganathan, Ramasamy, Jakobsen, Henrik, James, Nicholas D, Kanaga Sundaram, Subramanian, Lees, Kathryn, Lester, Jason, Lindberg, Henriette, Money-Kyrle, Julian, Morris, Stephen, O'Sullivan, Joe, Ostler, Peter, Owen, Lisa, Patel, Prashant, Pope, Alvan, Popert, Richard, Raman, Rakesh, Røder, Martin Andreas, Sayers, Ian, Simms, Matthew, Wilson, Jim, Zarkar, Anjali, Parmar, Mahesh K B, Sydes, Matthew R·2020·The Lancet

Abstract

Background The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. The RADICALS-RT trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure. Methods RADICALS-RT is a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins or pre-op PSA≥10ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant RT (“Adjuvant RT”) or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure (PSA≥0.1ng/ml or 3 consecutive rises) (“Salvage RT”). Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5Gy/20 fractions or 66Gy/33 fractions) and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage RT (control) to 95% at 10yr with Adjuvant RT. We report on bPFS, freedom-from-non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; HR<1 favours Adjuvant RT. Trial registration: NCT00541047. Findings Between Oct 2007 and Dec 2016, 1396 patients from United Kingdom, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised, 699 Salvage RT and 697 Adjuvant RT. Allocated groups were balanced with median age 65yr. Median follow-up is 4.9yr. 93% (649/697) Adjuvant RT reported RT within 6m; 33% (228/699) Salvage RT reported RT within 8yr after randomisation. With 169 events, 5yr bPFS was 85% for Adjuvant RT and 88% for Salvage RT: HR=1·10 (95%CI 0·81-1·49, p=0·56). Freedom-from-non-protocol hormone therapy at 5yr was 92% vs 94% (HR=1·24, 95%CI 0·76-2·01, p=0.39). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1yr for Adjuvant RT: 5·3% vs 2·7% (p=0·008). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2yr was reported in 6% Adjuvant RT vs 4% Salvage RT (p=0·02). Interpretation First results from RADICALS-RT do not support routine administration of adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant RT increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31553-1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 410

Metadata

Authors
Parker, C. C., Clarke, N. W., Cook, A. D., Kynaston, H. G., Petersen, P. M., Catton, C., Cross, W., Logue, J., Parulekar, W., Payne, H., Persad, R., Pickering, H., Saad, F., Anderson, J., Bahl, A., Bottomley, D., Brasso, K., Chahal, R., Cooke, P. W., Eddy, B., Gibbs, S., Goh, C., Gujral, S., Heath, C., Henderson, A., Jaganathan, R., Jakobsen, H., James, N. D., Kanaga Sundaram, S., Lees, K., Lester, J., Lindberg, H., Money-Kyrle, J., Morris, S., O'Sullivan, J., Ostler, P., Owen, L., Patel, P., Pope, A., Popert, R., Raman, R., Røder, M. A., Sayers, I., Simms, M., Wilson, J., Zarkar, A., Parmar, M. K. B., & Sydes, M. R.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
396
Issue
10260
Pages
1413-1421
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W3088359655
Cited by
410
References
1
FWCI
27.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31553-1
The paper
Parker, C. C., Clarke, N. W., Cook, A. D., Kynaston, H. G., Petersen, P. M., Catton, C., Cross, W., Logue, J., Parulekar, W., Payne, H., Persad, R., Pickering, H., Saad, F., Anderson, J., Bahl, A., Bottomley, D., Brasso, K., Chahal, R., Cooke, P. W., . . . Sydes, M. R. (2020). Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31553-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.