BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Observational Study
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Clin Oncol. Mar 24, 2026; 17(3): 115774
Published online Mar 24, 2026. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v17.i3.115774
Patient-reported outcome measures for technology assessment: A comparison between three-dimensional conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in prostate cancer
Arantxa Mera, Gemma Sancho, Olatz Garin, Àngels Pont, Yolanda Pardo, Victor Macias, Asuncion Hervas, Patricia Cabrera, Ferrán Ferrer, Àlvar Roselló, Pilar Samper Ots, María Elena García, Josep Jové-Teixidó, Montse Ferrer, The Multicentric Spanish Group of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
Arantxa Mera, Gemma Sancho, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Departamento de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona 08193, Catalonia, Spain
Olatz Garin, Yolanda Pardo, Montse Ferrer, Health Services Research Group, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), ISCIII, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona 08003, Catalonia, Spain
Àngels Pont, Health Services Research Group, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), ISCIII, Barcelona 08003, Catalonia, Spain
Victor Macias, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital La Fe, Valencia 46026, Spain
Asuncion Hervas, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
Patricia Cabrera, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla 41013, Andalucía, Spain
Ferrán Ferrer, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Institut Català d’Oncologia, Departament de Ciències Clíniques, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Hospitalet del Llobregat 08908, Spain
Àlvar Roselló, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Institut Català d’Oncologia, Girona 17007, Catalonia, Spain
Pilar Samper Ots, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Hospital Rey Juan Carlos, Mostoles 28933, Madrid, Spain
María Elena García, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Hospital Arnau Vilanova, Lleida 25198, Catalonia, Spain
Josep Jové-Teixidó, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Institut Català d’Oncologia, Badalona 08916, Catalonia, Spain
Co-corresponding authors: Olatz Garin and Montse Ferrer.
Author contributions: Mera A, Sancho G, Garin O, and Ferrer M designed the study; Mera A, Sancho G, Macias V, Hervas A, Cabrera P, Ferrer F, Roselló À, Samper Ots P, García ME, Jové-Teixidó J, and Ferrer M contributed to patient treatment and follow-up; Mera A, Garin O, and Ferrer M drafted the manuscript; Garin O and Ferrer M contributed equally in this manuscript, as senior and junior PIs in the study, sharing responsibility in the contact and preparation of this manuscript and the revision and submission process as co-corresponding authors; Pont A was the biomedical statistician performing the main statistical analysis; Mera A, Sancho G, Garin O, Pont À, Pardo Y, Macias V, Hervas A, Cabrera P, Ferrer F, Roselló À, Samper Ots P, García ME, Jové-Teixidó J, and Ferrer M collected, analysed and interpreted the data; all authors critically revised, read the manuscript and approved the final version.
Supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) and European Union, No. PI21/00023; Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, No. PRYES223070FERR; and Departament de Recerca i Universitats, Generalitat de Catalunya, No. AGAUR 2021 SGR 00624.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Parc de Salut Mar, which encompasses the coordinating centre Hospital del Mar Research Institute (No. 2021/10183/I).
Informed consent statement: All participants provided informed consent.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest for this article.
STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement – checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement – checklist of items.
Data sharing statement: The data supporting the results of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request at mferrer@researchmar.net.
Corresponding author: Montse Ferrer, PhD, Health Services Research Group, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), ISCIII, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Biomedical Research Park, office 140.03 Carrer del Doctor Aiguader 88, First Floor, Barcelona 08003, Catalonia, Spain. mferrer@researchmar.net
Received: October 27, 2025
Revised: November 22, 2025
Accepted: January 28, 2026
Published online: March 24, 2026
Processing time: 149 Days and 19.7 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Technological innovation in radiotherapy demands evaluation not only through dosimetric or clinician-reported outcomes, but also through patient-centred measures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a unique insight into how advances such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) affect daily functioning and quality of life, compared to conventional techniques. Despite the clear dosimetric benefits over three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), evidence on whether IMRT translates into superior patient-reported outcomes remains inconsistent. PROM-based assessment offers a robust framework to evaluate the real clinical value of radiotherapy technologies and their impact on long-term quality of life in localized prostate cancer.

AIM

To compare 3D-CRT and IMRT using PROMs and to examine the influence of image-guided techniques on outcomes.

METHODS

The observational study compared two independent cohorts of localized prostate cancer patients followed for five years: (1) 92 were treated with 3D-CRT (2003-2005); and (2) 106 with IMRT (2013-2019). PROMs were assessed using the expanded prostate cancer index composite and short form-36 health survey before treatment and annually, via centralized telephone interviews. Propensity score-weighted Generalized Estimating Equation models were constructed with adjustment for baseline differences. Within the IMRT cohort, a multivariate regression explored associations between image guidance, fractionation, and dose escalation and urinary outcomes 12 months post-treatment.

RESULTS

Both radiotherapy techniques were associated with sustained high long-term health-related quality of life, according to patient-reported data. Significant differences between modalities emerged from the second year or third year post-treatment in the expanded prostate cancer index composite urinary, bowel, and sexual domains. Patients treated with IMRT reported better trajectories in mental health (short form-36 health survey) compared with those treated with 3D-CRT. Within the IMRT cohort, the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography-based image guidance and reduced planning margins (≤ 5 mm) was associated with improved preservation of urinary continence (P = 0.048). Conversely, higher equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions doses (> 78 Gy) and hypofractionation (≥ 3 Gy/fraction) were associated to greater short-term deterioration in urinary incontinence (P = 0.030) and irritative/obstructive symptoms (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

PROMs reveal the real-world impact of radiotherapy advances from the patient’s perspective. IMRT improved urinary and bowel outcomes, supporting PROMs as valid tools for technology assessment and patient-centred treatment optimization.

Keywords: Prostate cancer; Radiotherapy; Patient-reported outcome measures; Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Quality of life

Core Tip: This study demonstrates the utility of patient-reported outcome measures in assessing technological advances in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. By comparing long-term quality-of-life outcomes between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, it reveals that intensity-modulated radiotherapy – especially when combined with image guidance and reduced margins – was associated with better preservation of urinary continence and bowel function. Conversely, hypofractionation and dose escalation may transiently worsen urinary symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures capture nuances in patient-centred effects of radiotherapy innovations, supporting their integration into technology assessment frameworks and guiding future optimization strategies.