Quantifying the impact of SpaceOAR hydrogel on inter-fractional rectal and bladder dose during 0.35 T MR-guided prostate adaptive radiotherapy

Prospective, Randomized Controlled Pivotal Trial of Biodegradable Balloon Rectal Spacer for Prostate Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Rectal spacers have been shown to reduce rectal side effects in patients receiving prostate radiation. However, concerns remain regarding precise and reproducible gel injection. We evaluated efficacy and safety of a novel rectoprostatic spacer balloon that allows potential for controlled, adaptable deployment. This study tested co-primary hypotheses: (1) balloon spacer would result in ≥25% reduction of rectal V70 in >75% of subjects and (2) implantation procedure-related and rectal ≥grade 1 adverse events within 6 months (duration ≥2 days, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0) would be noninferior in balloon versus control subjects.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 222 subjects were enrolled at 16 centers. All patients had T1-T3 prostate cancer without magnetic resonance imaging evidence of posterior extraprostatic invasion. Randomization was 2:1 (balloon: control) and subject-blinded. Patients underwent transperineal transrectal ultrasound axial and sagittal-guided fiducial placement ± balloon, followed by Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (81 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions or biologically equivalent hypofractionated dose). For efficacy comparisons, plans were generated by a central core lab on pre- and postimplant computed tomography scans.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was met, with 97.9% of balloon subjects (139/142) having rectal V70 reduction >25% (P < .001). Mean V70 was 7.0 % pre- versus 1.1% postimplant. The primary safety endpoint was met with balloon subjects experiencing fewer ≥grade 1 events, 18% versus 23% (P < .001 for noninferiority). On predefined secondary endpoint of ≥grade 2 events, rates trended lower in balloon subjects (4.3% vs 6.5%, P = .527). Mean perirectal spacing was 19 ± 3.7 mm and maintained through radiation treatment (18 ± 3.9 mm). Balloon resorption was observed on 6-month computed tomography in 98.5% (133/135) of subjects. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index quality of life instrument was collected throughout study, and did not differ statistically between the study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Biodegradable rectal spacer balloon was effective in significantly reducing dose to rectum, and associated with decreased cumulative rectal plus implantation-related adverse events. Balloon resorption was consistently observed by 6 months.

Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy

•

Prostate SBRT are treated using MR-guided adaptive IMRT (A-IMRT) and VMAT based on translation correction (3DOF-VMAT) at our institution.

•

Comparison of reference and delivered dose between adaptive-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT to assess the effect of interfractional motion.

•

Despite large interfractional changes, prostate received clinically acceptable dose with a margin of 5 mm through either A-IMRT or 3DOF-VMAT.

•

A-IMRT was more superior than 3DOF-VMAT in sparing the rectum in the high dose region; no difference between the two systems was observed for bladder.

Introduction

Methods & Materials

Results

Conclusions

Quantifying the impact of SpaceOAR hydrogel on inter-fractional rectal and bladder dose during 0.35 T MR-guided prostate adaptive radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of rectal spacing on inter-fractional rectal and bladder dose and the need for adaptive planning in prostate cancer patients undergoing SBRT with a 0.35 T MRI-Linac.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated and compared SBRT plans from prostate cancer patients with and without rectal spacer who underwent treatment on a 0.35 T MRI-Linac. Each group consisted of 10 randomly selected patients that received prostate SBRT to a total dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions. Dosimetric differences in planned and delivered rectal and bladder dose and the number of fractions violating OAR constraints were quantified. We also assessed whether adaptive planning was needed to meet constraints for each fraction.

RESULTS

On average, rectal spacing reduced the maximum dose delivered to the rectum by more than 8 Gy (p < 0.001). We also found that D3cc received by the rectum could be 12 Gy higher in patients who did not have rectal spacer (p < 9E-7). In addition, the results show that a rectal spacer can reduce the maximum dose and D15cc to the bladder wall by more than 1 (p < 0.004) and 8 (p < 0.009) Gy, respectively. Our study also shows that using a rectal spacer could reduce the necessity for adaptive planning. The incidence of dose constraint violation was observed in almost 91% of the fractions in patients without the rectal spacer and 52% in patients with implanted spacer.

CONCLUSION

Inter-fractional changes in rectal and bladder dose were quantified in patients who underwent SBRT with/without rectal SpaceOAR hydrogel. Rectal spacer does not eliminate the need for adaptive planning but reduces its necessity.