Who Benefits From a Prostate Rectal Spacer? Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Trial

Rectal Cancer after Prostate Radiation: A Complex and Controversial Disease

A small proportion of rectal adenocarcinomas develop in patients many years after the treatment of a previous cancer using pelvic radiation, and the incidence of these rectal cancers depends on the length of follow-up from the end of radiotherapy. The risk of radiation-associated rectal cancer (RARC) is higher in patients treated with prostate external beam radiotherapy than it is in patients treated with brachytherapy. The molecular features of RARC have not been fully investigated, and survival is lower compared to non-irradiated rectal cancer patients. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the worse outcomes are related to differences in patient characteristics, treatment-related factors, or tumor biology. Radiation is widely used in the management of rectal adenocarcinoma; however, pelvic re-irradiation of RARC is challenging and carries a higher risk of treatment complications. Although RARC can develop in patients treated for a variety of malignancies, it is most common in patients treated for prostate cancer. This study will review the incidence, molecular characteristics, clinical course, and treatment outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in patients previously treated with radiation for prostate cancer. For clarity, we will distinguish between rectal cancer not associated with prostate cancer (RCNAPC), rectal cancer in non-irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCNRPC), and rectal cancer in irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCRPC). RARC represents a unique but understudied subset of rectal cancer, and thus requires a more comprehensive investigation in order to improve its treatment and prognosis.

Application of Hydrogel Spacer SpaceOAR Vue for Prostate Radiotherapy

Damage in the surrounding structures, including the rectum, due to unintended exposure to radiation is a large burden to bear for patients who undergo radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The use of injectable rectal spacers to distance the anterior rectum from the prostate is a potential strategy to reduce the dose of unintended radiation to the rectum. Hydrogel spacers are gaining increasing popularity in the treatment regimen for prostate cancer. After FDA approval of SpaceOAR, specialists are receiving an increasing number of referrals for hydrogel placements. In this paper, we review hydrogel spacers, the supporting clinical data, the best practices for hydrogel placement, and the risk of adverse events.

Delphi study to identify consensus on patient selection for hydrogel rectal spacer use during radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To identify consensus on patient prioritisation for rectal hydrogel spacer use during radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in the UK.

DESIGN

Delphi study consisting of two rounds of online questionnaires, two virtual advisory board meetings and a final online questionnaire.

SETTING

Radical radiation therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Six leading clinical oncologists and one urologist from across the UK.

INTERVENTIONS

Rectal hydrogel spacer.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

None reported.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on the importance of minimising toxicity for treatments with curative intent and that even low-grade toxicity-related adverse events can significantly impact quality of life. There was agreement that despite meeting rectal dose constraints, too many patients experience rectal toxicity and that rectal hydrogel spacers in eligible patients significantly reduces toxicity-related adverse events. However, as a consequence of funding limitations, patients need to be prioritised for spacer use. A higher benefit of spacers can be expected in patients on anticoagulation and in patients with diabetes or inflammatory bowel disease, but consensus could not be reached regarding patient groups expected to benefit less. While radiation therapy regimen is not a main factor determining prioritisation, higher benefit is expected in ultrahypofractionated regimens.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong and general agreement that all patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical radiation therapy have the potential to benefit from hydrogel spacers. Currently, not all patients who could potentially benefit can access hydrogel spacers, and access is unequal. Implementation of the consensus recommendations would likely help prioritise and equalise access to rectal spacers for patients in the UK.

Rationale for Utilization of Hydrogel Rectal Spacers in Dose Escalated SBRT for the Treatment of Unfavorable Risk Prostate Cancer

In this review we outline the current evidence for the use of hydrogel rectal spacers in the treatment paradigm for prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy. We review their development, summarize clinical evidence, risk of adverse events, best practices for placement, treatment planning considerations and finally we outline a framework and rationale for the utilization of rectal spacers when treating unfavorable risk prostate cancer with dose escalated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).

Feasibility of Same-Day Prostate Fiducial Markers, Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer Placement, and Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation for External Beam Radiation Therapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated.

RESULTS

Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm³ vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm³; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was ^-1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints.

CONCLUSION

Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.

Rectal spacers in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A survey of UK uro-oncologists

AIM

To understand the awareness and use of rectal spacers for prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiotherapy in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG).

RESULTS

Sixty-three specialists completed the survey (50% of BUG members at that point in time). Only 37% had used rectal spacers, mostly for private patients or those with pre-existing bowel conditions. However, many (68%) would like to use these devices in future. More than 70% of the uro-oncologists felt that bowel toxicity was underreported, but 60% believed that the use of radiotherapy without bowel toxicity was achievable with the use of rectal spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of rectal spacers by UK uro-oncologists for patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy is low and largely restricted by resourcing issues.

Expanding the Utilization of Rectal Spacer Hydrogel for Larger Prostate Glands (>80 cc): Feasibility and Dosimetric Outcomes

Purpose

The Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Randomized Pivotal Trial achieved mean rectoprostatic spacing of 12.6 mm resulting in lowering of rectal V70 from 12.4% (without spacer) to 3.3% (with spacer) in patients with glands up to 80 cm³. The value of this approach in patients with larger glands is inadequately established. This study assesses the feasibility and dosimetric outcomes of perirectal spacing in patients with prostate cancer with larger glands (>80 cm³).

Methods and Materials

Between January 2017 and December 2019, 33 patients with prostate glands >80 cm³ (mean 108.1 cm³; range, 81.1-186.6 cm³) were treated, 15 with glands >80 to 100 cm³ and 18 >100 cm³. Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 3-26). The median international prostate symptom score was 9 (range, 1-18). Hydrogel was placed under local anesthesia in all cases. Treatment modality included intensity modulated radiation therapy in 15 and proton therapy (PT) in 18 patients. Treatment targeted the prostate plus seminal vesicles in 21 patients and 12 also had elective nodal irradiation. Conventional fractionation (CF) to 78 Gy in 39 fractions was used in 16 and moderate hypofractionation (HF) to 70 Gy in 28 fractions in 17 patients.

Results

In the CF group, mean rectum (r) V75, 70, 60, 50 was 0.87%, 2.25%, 5.61%, and 10.5%, respectively. For glands >80 to 100 cm³ and >100 cm³, rV70 was 2.55% and 2%, respectively. In HF patients, mean rV65, 63, 60, and 50 was 1.67%, 2.3%, 3.4%, and 8.6%. For glands >80 to 100 cm³ and >100 cm³, rV63 was 2% and 2.56%, respectively. Overall, the mean midgland rectoprostatic hydrogel separation was 9.3 mm (range, 4.7-19.4 mm). All patients tolerated treatment well; no acute grade 2 or higher adverse gastrointestinal events were observed.

Conclusions

Hydrogel placement is feasible in prostate glands larger than 80 cm³ with favorable dosimetric outcomes.