====== Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy ======

Chakrabarti et al. review and promote the adoption of **hypofractionated** and **ultra-hypofractionated (SBRT)** schedules for localized [[prostate cancer]], citing radiobiological rationale and recent clinical trials
((Chakrabarti D, Green H, Tree A. Hypofractionation/Ultra-hypofractionation for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2025 Jul;35(3):333-341. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2025.04.004. PMID: 40516968.)).

===== 🧠 Neurosurgical Relevance (Superficial at Best) =====
While superficially related to radiosurgical approaches in neuro-oncology, this review provides **no direct insights applicable to neurosurgical practice**. It is narrowly focused on prostate cancer and rooted in a radiotherapy culture far removed from neurosurgical clinical decision-making.

> The article's usefulness to a neurosurgeon is **limited to generic conceptual validation** of hypofractionation strategies — already well known in neuro-oncology.

===== ⚠️ Major Critical Points =====

==== 1. 📦 Recycled Content Disguised as Review ====
The authors summarize trials like CHHiP, HYPO-RT-PC, and PACE-B, all widely disseminated. No new angle, critique, or hypothesis is introduced. This is **[[academic repackaging]]**, not a [[review]].

> *Verdict:* **Redundant**. We knew all this five years ago.

==== 2. 🧪 Lack of Biological Depth ====
Despite citing radiobiological justification (low α/β), the article fails to:
  * Address tumor heterogeneity.
  * Discuss fractionation sensitivity at a molecular level.
  * Extend these principles to other tumor types, such as gliomas or meningiomas.

> *Translation:* Missed opportunity to bridge toward neuro-oncology.

==== 3. 💬 Rhetorical Inflation ====
Terms like “noninferiority,” “acceptable toxicity,” and “resource optimization” are used uncritically:
  * **No nuanced discussion** of PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures).
  * **No mention** of long-term cognitive, urinary, or sexual function deterioration.
  * **No counterarguments** regarding overtreatment in low-risk disease.

> This is **marketing wrapped in medical terminology**.

==== 4. 🧯 No Application to Intracranial or Spinal Disease ====
No effort is made to extrapolate lessons learned to **brain tumors, skull base lesions, or spinal metastases** — all areas where SBRT is also evolving.

> *For neurosurgeons:* This is not a transferable model; it is **organ-specific siloeing**.

==== 5. 💰 Efficiency Arguments That Mask Financial Conflicts ====
The article touts "efficiency" and "reduced burden" without exploring:
  * The **true economic cost** of SBRT (planning, imaging, QA).
  * **Billing incentives** behind fraction reduction.
  * **Access inequalities**, especially in low-resource environments.

> Efficiency without transparency is just **cost-shifting**.

==== 6. 😴 Stylistic Sterility ====
A bland, consensus-driven voice with no dissent, no challenge, no clinical doubt. This is **institutional publishing** — not critical scholarship.

> “Safe, effective, efficient” — the academic equivalent of **elevator music**.

===== 🧠 Neurosurgical Bottom Line =====
This article has **minimal relevance** to neurosurgery beyond revalidating an already-known principle: fewer, larger doses can work — in some cancers, in some contexts. It does **not inspire, educate, or challenge** neurosurgical thinking.

> **[[Hypofractionation]]** in neuro-oncology deserves its **own mechanistic exploration** — not a borrowed script from prostate cancer.

===== 🧩 Useful Only As: =====
  * A talking point in tumor boards when radiation oncologists push SBRT.
  * A cautionary example of what **academic theater** looks like.
  * A template of how **not to write** a cross-specialty impactful review.

----
**Reviewed by:** //Neurosurgery Wiki Editorial Board//  
**Date:** 2025-06-15