News|Articles|August 18, 2026

SBRT improves multiple quality of life domains but not DFS vs MH-IMRT

Author(s)Hannah Clarke
Listen
0:00 / 0:00

Key Takeaways

  • Trial compared 36.25 Gy/5 SBRT with 60 Gy/20 or 70 Gy/28 MH-IMRT; primary endpoints were EPIC-26 MCID at 2 years and DFS at 3 years.
  • Bowel HRQOL favored SBRT (MCID 34.9% vs 43.8%), and rectal spacers improved reported bowel function across arms.
SHOW MORE

The phase 3 NRG-GU005 trial found SBRT improved bowel quality of life vs MH-IMRT but did not improve urinary outcomes or disease-free survival.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with superior patient-reported bowel quality of life (HRQOL) and lower rates of grade 3 or higher genitourinary adverse events compared with moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (MH-IMRT) in patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, according to results from the phase 3 NRG-GU005 trial (NCT03367702).1

However, SBRT was not superior for urinary irritative/obstructive health-related quality of life (HRQOL) or disease-free survival (DFS). The findings were published in JAMA, adding insight on the relative risks and benefits of shortened treatment courses for prostate radiotherapy.

About the study

NRG-GU005 was an international, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial conducted at 136 centers in the US, Canada, Europe, and Asia. The study enrolled 698 patients with previously untreated, localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eligible patients had clinical stage T1-T2b disease with either Gleason score 3+4 (grade group 2) and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level below 20 ng/mL or Gleason score 3+3 (grade group 1) and a PSA level of 10 ng/mL to 20 ng/mL.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to SBRT consisting of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions (n = 353) or MH-IMRT consisting of either 70 Gy in 28 fractions or 60 Gy in 20 fractions (n = 345). The trial used the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) to evaluate patient-reported urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel HRQOL. The primary HRQOL outcomes were the proportions of patients experiencing a minimal clinically important decline (MCID) in those domains at 2 years, and the oncologic primary outcome was DFS at 3 years.

At 2 years, 35.4% of patients receiving SBRT and 33.7% receiving MH-IMRT experienced an MCID in urinary irritative/obstructive HRQOL, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .68). In contrast, fewer patients treated with SBRT experienced an MCID in bowel HRQOL, at 34.9% vs 43.8% with MH-IMRT (P = .03). In both cohorts, rectal spacing was associated with improved patient-reported bowel function.

Urinary incontinence at 1 and 2 years and sexual function at 1 year favored SBRT. Grade 3 or 4 genitourinary adverse events occurred in 0.6% of patients receiving SBRT compared with 2.5% of those receiving MH-IMRT (P = .04).

At 3 years, DFS was 88.6% (95% CI, 85.2 to 92.1) with SBRT and 92.1% (95% CI, 88.9 to 95.2) with MH-IMRT (1-sided log-rank P < .001). The rate of biochemical DFS failure by PSA testing was significantly higher with SBRT, with rates of 7.8% vs 4.2%, respectively, at 3 years (P = .04; adjusted HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.27; P = .046).

Clinical context

Prior randomized data have supported SBRT as an option for selected patients with localized prostate cancer. In the phase 3 PACE-B trial (NCT01584258), 874 men with T1 or T2 disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to SBRT or conventional/moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 74.0 months, SBRT was noninferior to standard radiotherapy for biochemical or clinical failure (95.8% vs 94.6%; HR, 0.73; 90% CI, 0.48 to 1.12; P-value for non-inferiority = .004), although late grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity was more common with SBRT (26.9% vs 18.3%; P < .001).2

Notably, PACE-B allowed a higher-dose regimen permitted per trial protocol. The NRG-GU005 investigators noted that the higher dose used in PACE-B likely contributed to more favorable PSA control with SBRT, although the trial also showed increased urinary adverse events.

“The NRG GU-005 trial shows that SBRT can be offered as a standard of care for most low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. [The study also] shows SBRT can result in lower toxicity than standard treatment,” said lead author Rodney J. Ellis, MD, in correspondence with Urology Times®. “This trial adds to the PACE-B phase 3 trial that shows SBRT is non-inferior to standard IMRT.”

However, he also added, “An increase in PSA failure was noted prior to the planned 5-year end point for reporting. Thus, further follow-up and more studies are [needed] to determine if the dose to the whole gland needs to match PACE-B, or if advanced imaging may be used for a focal boost to be given to higher risk regions to assure equivalent outcomes while maintaining lower toxicity.”

REFERENCES

1. Ellis RJ, Pugh SL, Yu JB, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs moderately hypofractionated IMRT for localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2026:e2612627. doi:10.1001/jama.2026.12627

2. van As N, Griffin C, Tree A, et al. Phase 3 trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(15):1413-1425. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2403365