Background: Split-course radiotherapy is only rarely applied in curative radiotherapy and there might be a number of arguments to believe that continuous radiotherapy is superior to split-course treatment. In order to point out the evidence current treatment practice is based on, the available randomized trials and some prominent retrospective analyses on split-course radiotherapy were critically assessed.
Material and methods: The analysis of the clinical results was based on published data only. Publications were searched in a Medline database.
Results: Assessment of 13 randomized trials, including the data of 2,112 patients, revealed no significant difference between continuous-course and split-course radiotherapy. Astonishingly, the outcome of 77 radiotherapy studies on split-course, most of which are retrospective, seems to depend on the year of publication, suggesting publication bias.
Conclusions: No clinically relevant difference between continuous and split-course radiotherapy could be found. This, of course, does not proof that there are indeed no differences but the data do not allow to draw clear-cut conclusions in favor of or against split-course radiotherapy due to methodological shortcomings of the studies.