Rectal Perforation by a Balloon Spacer: A Rare Cause of Rectal Perforation Addressed Endoscopically

Long-term evaluation of the safety of a rectal-prostate spacer, the ProSpace® balloon, in patients treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Due to the close proximity of the prostate and rectum, rectal toxicity remains a major problem in patient treated by radiotherapy for prostate adenocarcinoma. One method of increasing the distance between the prostate and the rectum is to use a spacer implanted into the rectoprostatic space. This report describes the long-term outcomes obtained with a new ballon spacer.

METHODS

Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma, who underwent insertion of the ProSpace® (BioProtect Ltd, Tzur Yigal, Israel) rectal-prostate balloon spacer, were included. The main objective was to evaluate the dosimetric benefit of the spacer for OARs. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the feasibility and tolerability of ProSpace® balloon placement and to evaluate its long-term therapeutic efficacy and tolerance.

RESULTS

Between October 2013 and March 2015, 16 patients were enrolled in the Pasteur Clinic, Toulouse, France. The median follow-up was 85.5 months. From top to bottom, the space created was a mean of 16.3 mm (range: 11-20.5 mm) at the base of the prostate, 12.1 mm (range: 4-16 mm) at the middle and 8.9 mm at the apex (range: 5-15 mm). On average, rectal volumes receiving a dose of 70 Gy, 60 Gy and 50 Gy were significantly lower after balloon implantation: -4.81 cc (1.5 vs. 6.3; p < 0.0005), -8.08 cc (6.4 vs. 14.5; p = 0.002) and -9.06 cc (16.7 vs. 25.7; p = 0.003), respectively. There were significant differences in coverage after balloon implantation: Median V95% (p < 0.0005), median Dmin (p = 0.01) and median V98% (p < 0.001) were higher after balloon implantation. At 5 years, cumulative gastrointestinal toxicity was grade 1 in 6% (1/16 patients). No toxicity of grade 2 or higher was found. At 5 years, no urinary toxicity grade 3 or 4 toxicity was found. The QoL was not deteriorated.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the ProSpace® balloon seems to be well accepted by patients, allowing a double dosimetric gain: a decrease in doses received by the rectum and an improvement in the coverage of the high-risk PTV. The long-term gastrointestinal toxicity remains low and QoL is preserved in all treated patients.

Case Report: Reversal of Hyaluronic Acid Rectal Wall Infiltration with Hyaluronidase

Peri-rectal spacers provide protection to the rectum for patients receiving radiation therapy treating prostate cancers. Commonly used hydrogel spacers hold the disadvantage that they cannot be readily reversed should inadvertent injection outside of the target area occurs, potentially leading to ischemia of the rectal mucosa leading to severe pain and ulceration, which can then lead to superinfection and pelvic abscess formation, and subsequently recto-prostatic fistulas. This could require major surgical intervention. New hyaluronic acid spacers are readily reversible with hyaluronidase and provide a valuable means to correct any misinjected spacer. We present a patient with prostate cancer who was planned for radiation therapy and required a rectal spacer. The hyaluronic acid rectal spacer was injected in part into the rectal wall. The patient was asymptomatic, and a sigmoidoscopy confirms healthy bowel mucosa only. The misinjected hyaluronic acid was successfully treated with targeted injection of hyaluronidase into only the rectal wall portion. Serial follow-up imaging demonstrated rapid dissolution of the misinjected hyaluronic acid with the well-positioned hyaluronic acid remaining. The patient did not experience any side effects of the hyaluronidase.