Cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrogel spacer for rectal toxicity reduction in prostate external beam radiotherapy

Efficacy of a hydrogel spacer for improving quality of life in patients with prostate cancer undergoing low-dose-rate brachytherapy alone or in combination with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: An observational study using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether a hydrogel spacer can improve quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) alone or in combination with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

METHODS

We enrolled patients with prostate cancer who underwent LDR-BT alone with (n = 186) or without (n = 348) a hydrogel spacer, or underwent LDR-BT in combination with IMRT with (n = 70) or without (n = 217) a hydrogel spacer. QOL was evaluated using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after implantation. The groups were compared using propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Among patients who underwent LDR-BT alone, there were no differences regarding changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, or hormonal domain scores between the spacer and no-spacer groups; however, the dose at the bowel was significantly lower in the spacer group than in the no-spacer group. Among patients who underwent LDR-BT in combination with IMRT, there were no differences regarding changes in urinary, sexual, or hormonal domain scores between the spacer and no-spacer groups. However, the changes in the bowel domain score were significantly lower in the spacer group than in the no-spacer group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A hydrogel spacer may not improve impaired urinary, bowel, or sexual QOL in patients undergoing LDR-BT alone. However, in patients undergoing LDR-BT in combination with IMRT, a hydrogel spacer can improve impaired bowel QOL but not sexual or urinary QOL.

Comprehensive review of the use of hydrogel spacers prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive narrative review of the published data on the impact of hydrogel spacers on rectal dosimetry and toxicity and to outline the practicalities of inserting hydrogel spacers.

RESULTS

A growing body of evidence suggests that the administration of hydrogel spacers is safe and is associated with limited peri-operative morbidity. The impact on rectal dosimetry has been clearly established and use of hydrogel spacers is associated with reduced rectal morbidity. These results have been corroborated by several Phase II and III clinical trials and subsequent meta-analysis. There are several areas for future research, including the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate stereotactic beam radiotherapy and post-radiotherapy local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrogel spacers provide a low-morbidity method to potential reduce rectal toxicity after radiation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Data outlining sexual function and oncological outcomes are limited to date. Future studies, currently being conducted, may provide further clarification of the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate cancer management.

Foreign body removal with the assistance of ultrasound guidance and methylene blue staining in children-a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue foreign bodies (FBs) are very commonly observed in paediatric emergency departments. Not all FBs can be removed effectively, even via open surgery and image intensifier guidance. In the current study, we evaluated the efficiency of FB removal with the assistance of ultrasound (US) and methylene blue (MB) staining.

METHODS

We enrolled 80 patients at our clinical center between May 2016 and December 2020. Eleven patients were operated upon with the assistance of US guidance and MB and were defined as group A; the other 69 patients were defined as group B. For the patients in group A, US was first used to locate the FB; MB was then injected next to the FB. Open surgery was subsequently performed. For group B, the FBs were removed by conventional methods. The surgical outcomes were evaluated according to surgical duration, incision infection rates, radiograph exposure times, and FB residue rates.

RESULTS

The average surgery time for group A was 0.35 ± 0.10 hours; the corresponding time was 0.49 ± 0.50 hours in group B and there was a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.032). The radiograph exposure times were 1.33 ± 0.34 in group A and 4.65 ± 1.81 times in group B (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that assistance of US and MB staining is a more efficient approach compared with traditional methods for FB removal, and this surgical method can be used effectively for FB removal in children.