Stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: toxicity profile and early oncologic outcomes

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

An optimal method of hydrogel spacer insertion for stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore an ideal method for hydrogel spacer insertion by analyzing the efficacy and safety of our originally developed apex expansion method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 100 patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy were included. A hydrogel spacer was inserted in 64 and 36 patients using the conventional and apex expansion methods, respectively. For dosimetry, we trisected the rectum into the upper rectum, middle rectum, and lower rectum on the sagittal section of magnetic resonance imaging. We compared the dose to each part of the rectum between the two methods using dose-volume histograms. Genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity assessments were conducted until 3 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The whole rectal dose in the apex expansion method group was lower than that in the conventional method group, which was significant in all dose regions (V5-V35). Similarly, in the apex expansion method group, the dose to the middle rectum was lower in the low- to high-dose region (V10-V35), and the dose to the lower rectum was lower in the middle- to high-dose region (V15-35). No Grade ≥ 3 toxicity or procedure-related complications were observed. Additionally, Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities during the treatment showed no significant differences between the two methods.

CONCLUSION

The apex expansion method may be safe and effective in achieving a more efficient rectal dose reduction by expanding the anterior perirectal space in the prostatic apex area.

One-year clinical outcomes of MR-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy with rectal spacer for patients with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This prospective study aimed to investigate adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) with rectal spacer for localized prostate cancer (PC) and report 1-year clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients with low- to high-risk localized PC that underwent 5-fraction adaptive MRgSBRT with rectal spacer were enrolled. The dosimetric comparison was performed on a risk- and age-matched cohort treated with MRgSBRT but without a spacer at a similar timepoint. Clinician-reported outcomes were based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patient-reported outcomes were based on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline, acute (1-3 months), subacute (4-12 months), and late (> 12 months) phases.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 390 days (range 28-823) and the median age was 70 years (range 58-82). One patient experienced rectal bleeding soon after spacer insertion that subsided before MRgSBRT. The median distance between the midline of the prostate midgland and the rectum after spacer insertion measured 7.8 mm (range 2.6-15.3), and the median length of the spacer was 45.9 mm (range 16.8-62.9) based on T2-weighted MR imaging. The use of spacer resulted in significant improvements in target coverage (V100% > 95% = 98.6% [range 93.4-99.8] for spacer vs. 97.8% [range 69.6-99.7] for non-spacer) and rectal sparing (V95% < 3 cc = 0.7 cc [range 0-4.6] for spacer vs. 4.9 cc [range 0-12.5] for non-spacer). Nine patients (26.5%) experienced grade 1 gastrointestinal toxicities, and no grade ≥ 2 toxicities were observed. During the 1-year follow-up period, EPIC scores for the bowel domain remained stable and were the highest among all other domains.

CONCLUSIONS

MRgSBRT with rectal spacer for localized PC showed exceptional tolerability with minimal gastrointestinal toxicities and satisfactory patient-reported outcomes. Improvements in dosimetry, rectal sparing, and target coverage were achieved with a rectal spacer. Randomized trials are warranted for further validation.

Cs-131 prostate brachytherapy boost and effect of hydrogel rectal spacer on long-term patient-reported rectal bleeding and bowel quality of life

PURPOSE

This study evaluates long-term patient-reported bowel quality of life (QOL), rectal bleeding, and bleeding bother in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and Cesium-131 LDR brachytherapy (LDR-BT) boost with and without hydrogel rectal spacer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a retrospective analysis of prostate cancer patients treated between 2007 and 2022 with 45 Gy EBRT followed by 85 Gy Cs-131 LDR-BT boost with or without hydrogel rectal spacer. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) QOL questionnaires pre-treatment and at each follow-up were collected. Patient-reported rectal bleeding occurring more than "rarely" and bother from rectal bleeding occurring more than a "very small problem" were deemed clinically significant. Fisher's exact test was used to test the association of rectal spacer use and the incidence of clinically significant rectal bleeding and bleeding bother. Paired samples t-test was used to analyze mean bowel scores at each time point.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-one patients were included in the analysis. The rectal spacer was used in 108 patients. Overall median follow-up was 48 months (IQR, 24-72), with a median follow-up of 24 months (IQR, 12-37.5) for the hydrogel group and 60 months (IQR, 36-84) for the non-hydrogel group. EPIC questionnaire response rates at median follow-up were 33% and 37% for the hydrogel and non-hydrogel groups, respectively. A clinically significant decrease in mean bowel domain scores was seen in the bowel bother domain at 6 and 12 months for patients who did not receive a rectal spacer. At the last follow-up of 60 months, the prevalence of clinically significant rectal bleeding and bleeding bother were 2.2% and 2.2%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of clinically significant long-term rectal bleeding was 2.8% and 18.9% in the hydrogel group and non-hydrogel group, respectively (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.0001). The cumulative incidence of clinically significant long-term bowel bother was 4.6% and 19.7% in the hydrogel group and non-hydrogel group, respectively (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of hydrogel rectal spacer with EBRT and Cs-131 LDR-BT boost was significantly associated with a lower incidence of patient-reported rectal bleeding and bother from rectal bleeding, and better long-term bowel QOL. Cumulative incidence was 2.8% (hydrogel group) versus 18.9% (non-hydrogel group) and 4.6% (hydrogel group) versus 19.7% (non-hydrogel group) for clinically significant long-term rectal bleeding and long-term bleeding bother, respectively.

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.

The effect of integrating knowledge-based planning with multicriteria optimization in treatment planning for prostate SBRT

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) and multicriteria optimization (MCO) are two powerful tools to assist treatment planners in achieving optimal target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. The purpose of this work is to investigate if integrating MCO with conventional KBP can further improve treatment plan quality for prostate cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). A two-phase study was designed to investigate the impact of MCO and KBP in prostate SBRT treatment planning. The first phase involved the creation of a KBP model based on thirty clinical SBRT plans, generated by manual optimization (KBP_M). A ten-patient validation cohort was used to compare manual, MCO, and KBP_M optimization techniques. The next phase involved replanning the original model cohort with additional tradeoff optimization via MCO to create a second model, KBP_MCO. Plans were then generated using linear integration (KBP_M+MCO), non-linear integration (KBP_MCO), and a combination of integration methods (KBP_MCO+MCO). All plans were analyzed for planning target volume (PTV) coverage, OAR constraints, and plan quality metrics. Comparisons were generated to evaluate plan and model quality. Phase 1 highlighted the necessity of KBP and MCO in treatment planning, as both optimization methods improved plan quality metrics (Conformity and Heterogeneity Indices) and reduced mean rectal dose by 2 Gy, as compared to manual planning. Integrating MCO with KBP did not further improve plan quality, as little significance was seen over KBP or MCO alone. Principal component score (PCS) fitting showed KBP_MCO improved bladder and rectum estimated and modeled dose correlation by 5% and 22%, respectively; however, model improvements did not significantly impact plan quality. KBP and MCO have shown to reduce OAR dose while maintaining desired PTV coverage in this study. Further integration of KBP and MCO did not show marked improvements in treatment plan quality while requiring increased time in model generation and optimization time.

Hypofractionation and SABR: 25 years of evolution in medical physics and a glimpse of the future

As we were invited to write an article for celebrating the 50^th Anniversary of Medical Physics journal, on something historically significant, commemorative, and exciting happening in the past decades, the first idea came to our mind is the fascinating radiotherapy paradigm shift from conventional fractionation to hypofractionation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). It is historically and clinically significant since as we all know this RT treatment revolution not only reduces treatment duration for patients, but also improves tumor control and cancer treatment outcomes. It is also commemorative and exciting for us medical physicists since the technology development in medical physics has been the main driver for the success of this treatment regimen which requires high precision and accuracy throughout the entire treatment planning and delivery. This article provides an overview of the technological development and clinical trials evolvement in the past 25 years for hypofractionation and SABR, with an outlook to the future improvement.

Rectal Radiation Dose and Clinical Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With and Without Hydrogel

Background

Patients with prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may experience gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. The hydrogel may mitigate this toxicity by reducing the rectal radiation dose. The purpose of this study is to compare rectal radiation dose and GI toxicity in patients receiving prostate SBRT with and without hydrogel.

Methods

Consecutive patients treated with SBRT between February 2017 and January 2020 with and without hydrogel were retrospectively identified. Baseline characteristics including prostate volume, rectal diameter, body mass index (BMI), age, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, T-stage, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) usage were compared. Dosimetric outcomes (V40Gy, V36Gy, V32Gy, V38Gy, and V20Gy), rates of acute (≤90 days) and late (>90 days) GI toxicity, and PSA outcomes were evaluated for patients with and without hydrogel.

Results

A total of 92 patients were identified (51 hydrogel and 41 non-hydrogel). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. Rectal V38(cc) was significantly less in the hydrogel group (mean 0.44 vs. mean 1.41 cc, p = 0.0002), and the proportion of patients with V38(cc) < 2 cc was greater in the hydrogel group (92% vs. 72%, p = 0.01). Rectal dose was significantly lower for all institutional dose constraints in the hydrogel group (p < 0.001). The hydrogel group experienced significantly less acute overall GI toxicity (16% hydrogel vs. 28% non-hydrogel, p = 0.006), while the difference in late GI toxicity trended lower with hydrogel but was not statistically significant (4% hydrogel vs. 10% non-hydrogel, p = 0.219). At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, there were no biochemical recurrences in either group.

Conclusion

Hydrogel reduces rectal radiation dose in patients receiving prostate SBRT and is associated with a decreased rate of acute GI toxicity.

Natural history of lower urinary tract symptoms among men undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer with and without a Rectal Hydrogel Spacer

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used for prostate cancer, but has morbidity as both the bladder and rectum are radiated during treatment. Our goal was to document and compare lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) among men who underwent SBRT with and without SpaceOAR hydrogel (Augmenix, Inc., Bedford, MA).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 87 men (50 SpaceOAR and 37 non-SpaceOAR) who underwent SBRT. Primary outcomes were patient reported symptoms during radiation therapy, pharmacotherapy usage, and urologic and bowel survey scores up to 6-months post-SBRT.

RESULTS

78% of men were on α-inhibitors at the end of SBRT, an increase from 27.6% baseline usage (p < 0.001). Post-SBRT urinary frequency was more common in the non-SpaceOAR group versus the SpaceOAR group (68% versus 38%, p = 0.006), as was nocturia (35% vs. 8%, p = 0.002). Acute gastrointestinal symptoms did not differ. 58.8% of men were on α-inhibitors at 6-months of follow-up post-SBRT, an increase from 27.6% baseline usage (p < 0.001). Importantly, there was a difference of α-inhibitor use between non-SpaceOAR and SpaceOAR groups at the end of SBRT and at 1.5-, 3-, and 6-months follow up (86% vs. 53% [p = 0.002], 83% vs. 53% [p = 0.005], 72% vs. 49% [p = 0.038], respectively).

CONCLUSION

LUTS after SBRT remains a significant problem for men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. LUTS affects men during and up to 6-months following SBRT. Owing to these increased LUTS, preemptive minimally invasive solutions and their mechanisms of protection, including the SpaceOAR, should be further investigated.

SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer injection prior to stereotactic body radiation therapy for men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy is a common treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. A growing consensus suggests that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is similarly effective but less costly and more convenient for patients. The SpaceOAR hydrogel rectal spacer placed between the prostate and rectum reduces radiation-induced rectal injury in patients receiving conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, but spacer efficacy with SBRT is unclear. The purpose of this research was to assess the clinical utility of the hydrogel rectal spacer in men receiving SBRT for prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies in men who received the SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer prior to SBRT (≥5.0 Gy fractions) for treatment of localized prostate center. Rectal irradiation results were compared to controls without spacer implant; all other outcomes were reported descriptively owing to lack of comparative data incuding perirectal separation distance, rectal irradiation on a dosimetric curve, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and freedom from biochemical failure. GI toxicity was reported as the risk of a grade 2 or 3+ bowel complication in early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) follow-up.

RESULTS

In 11 studies with 780 patients, SBRT protocols ranged from 7 to 10 Gy per fraction with total dose ranging from 19 to 45 Gy. Perirectal distance achieved with the rectal spacer ranged from 9.6 to 14.5 mm (median 10.8 mm). Compared to controls receiving no spacer, SpaceOAR placement reduced the radiation delivered to the rectum by 29% to 56% across a dosimetric profile curve. In early follow-up, grade 2 GI complications were reported in 7.0% of patients and no early grade 3+ GI complications were reported. In late follow-up, the corresponding rates were 2.3% for grade 2 and 0.3% for grade 3 GI toxicity. Over 16 months median follow-up, freedom from biochemical failure ranged from 96.4% to 100% (pooled mean 97.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer placed between the prostate and rectum prior to SBRT is a promising preventative strategy that increases the distance between the prostate and rectum, reduces rectal radiation exposure, and may lower the risk of clinically important GI complications.

Dosimetric feasibility of stereotactic irradiation of primary prostate cancer at 5x9 Gy with a method of urethral sparing

OBJECTIVE

The most commonly used dose for prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is 5 × 7.25 Gy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric feasibility of a 5 × 9 Gy SBRT regimen while still limiting the dose to the urethra to 5 × 7.25 Gy. This dosimetric study is part of the groundwork for a future Phase III randomized trial.

METHODS

The prostate, the urethra and the tumors were delineated on 20 dosimetric CT-scans with MRI-registration. The planning target volume (PTVp) was defined as a 5 mm expansion (3 mm posteriorly) of the prostate. The planning at risk volume (PRVu) was defined as a 2 mm expansion of the urethra. The tumors were delineated on the MRI (GTVt) and a 3 mm-margin was added to create a tumoral planning target volume (PTVt). IMRT plans were optimized to deliver 5 × 9 Gy to the PTVp, limiting the dose to the PRVu to 5 × 7.25 Gy. Results are presented using average (range) values.

RESULTS

PTVp doses were D98% = 36.2 Gy (35.6-36.8), D2% = 46.9 Gy (46.5-47.5) and mean dose = 44.1 Gy (43.8-44.5). The dose to the PRVu was within tolerance limits for all 20 patients: V34.4Gy = 99.8% (99.2-100) and D5% = 38.7 Gy (38.6-38.8). Dose coverage of PTV-PRVu was D95% = 40.6 Gy (40.5-40.9), D5% = 46.6 Gy (46.2-47.2) and mean dose = 44.6 Gy (44.3-44.9). Dose to the PTVt reached 44.6 Gy (41.2-45.9). Doses to the OAR were respected, except V36Gy ≤1 cc for the rectum.

CONCLUSION

A SBRT dose-escalation to 5 × 9 Gy on the prostate while sparing the urethra + 2 mm at 36.25 Gy is feasible without compromising dose coverage to the tumor. This radiation regimen will be used for a Phase-III trial.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

In prostate SBRT, dose optimization on the urethra is feasible and could decrease urinary toxicities.

A Multi-Institutional Phase 2 Trial of High-Dose SAbR for Prostate Cancer Using Rectal Spacer

PURPOSE

High-dose SABR for prostate cancer offers the radiobiologic potency of the most intensified radiation therapy regimens but was associated with >90% rates of ulceration of the anterior rectal wall on endoscopic assessment; this infrequently progressed to severe rectal toxicity in prior prospective series. A multi-institutional phase 2 prospective trial was conducted to assess whether placement of a perirectal hydrogel spacer would reduce acute periprostatic rectal ulcer events after high-dose (>40 Gy) SABR.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligible patients included men with stage ≤T2c localized grade group 1 to 3 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤15 ng/mL, American Urological Association Symptom Index = AUA-SI scores ≤18, and a gland volume ≤80 cm³. Patients underwent perirectal hydrogel spacer placement, followed by SABR of 45 Gy in 5 fractions every other day to the prostate only. Androgen deprivation was not allowed except for cytoreduction. The rectal wall was directly assessed by serial anoscopy during follow-up to determine whether the spacer would reduce acute periprostatic rectal ulcer events from >90% to <70% within 9 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-four men were enrolled and 43 were eligible for protocol analysis. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 48 months. Acute periprostatic ulcers were observed in 6 of 42 patients (14.3%; 95% confidence interval, 6.0%-27%; P < .001) at a median of 2.9 months posttreatment (range, 1.7-5.6 months). All ulcers (grade 1, 5 ulcers; grade 2, 1 ulcer) resolved on repeat anoscopy within 8 months of incidence. There were no grade ≥3 late gastrointestinal toxicities; the incidence of late grade-2 gastrointestinal toxicities was 14.3%, with a prevalence at 3 years of 0%. No toxicities greater than grade 3 occurred in any domain. Four-year freedom from biochemical failure was 93.8% (95% CI, 85.2%-100.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary hydrogel spacer placement before high-dose SABR treatment for localized prostate cancer and use of strict dose constraints are associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of rectal ulcer events compared with prior phase 1/2 trial results.

Plan comparison of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy in spacer implant patients

In prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), hydrogel spacers are increasingly used. This study aimed to perform a dosimetry comparison of treatment plans using CyberKnife (CK), commonly used for prostate SBRT, Helical TomoTherapy (HT), and TrueBeam (TB) in patients with hydrogel spacer implantations. The data of 20 patients who received hydrogel spacer implantation for prostate SBRT were retrospectively analyzed. The prescription dose was 36.25 Gy in five fractions to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV; D95). The conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose‐volume histogram (DVH) were analyzed for the three modalities, using the same PTV margins. The monitor unit (MU) and the beam‐on‐time (BOT) values were subsequently compared. The CI of TB (0.93 ± 0.02) was significantly superior to those of CK (0.82 ± 0.03, p < 0.01) and HT (0.86 ± 0.03, p < 0.01). Similarly, the GI value of TB (3.59 ± 0.12) was significantly better than those of CK (4.31 ± 0.43, p < 0.01) and HT (4.52 ± 0.24, p < 0.01). The median doses to the bladder did not differ between the CK and TB (V18.1 Gy: 16.5% ± 4.5% vs. 15.8% ± 4.4%, p = 1.00), but were significantly higher for HT (V18.1 Gy: 33.2% ± 7.3%, p < 0.01 vs. CK, p < 0.01 vs. TB). The median rectal dose was significantly lower for TB (V18.1 Gy: 5.6% ± 4.5%) than for CK (V18.1 Gy: 11.2% ± 6.7%, p < 0.01) and HT (20.2% ± 8.3%, p < 0.01). TB had the shortest BOT (2.6 min; CK: 17.4 min, HT: 6.9 min). TB could create treatment plans dosimetrically comparable to those of CK when using the same margins, in patients with hydrogel spacers.

Extreme Hypofractionation with SBRT in Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men around the world. Radiotherapy is a standard of care treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. Over the years, radiation delivery modalities have contributed to increased precision of treatment, employing radiobiological insights to shorten the overall treatment time, improving the control of the disease without increasing toxicities. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents an extreme form of hypofractionated radiotherapy in which treatment is usually delivered in 1–5 fractions. This review assesses the main efficacy and toxicity data of SBRT in non-metastatic prostate cancer and discusses the potential to implement this scheme in routine clinical practice.

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.

Studies of Intra-Fraction Prostate Motion During Stereotactic Irradiation in First Irradiation and Re-Irradiation

Background

Understanding intra-fractional prostate motions is crucial for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). No studies have focused on the intra-fractional prostate motions during re-irradiation with SBRT. The objective was to evaluate these translational and rotational motions in primary treated patients and in the context of re-irradiation.

Methods

From January 2011 to March 2020, 162 patients with histologically proven prostate cancer underwent prostate SBRT, including 58 as part of a re-irradiation treatment. We used the continuous coordinates of the fiducial markers collected by an orthogonal X-ray dual-image monitoring system. The translations and rotations of the prostate were calculated. Prostate deviations representing overall movement was defined as the length of the 3D-vectors.

Results

A total of 858 data files were analyzed. The deviations over time in the group of primary treated patients were significantly larger than that of the group of re-irradiation, leading to a mean deviation of 2.73 mm (SD =1.00) versus 1.90 mm (SD =0.79), P<0.001. In the re-irradiation group, we identified displacements of -0.05 mm (SD =1.53), 0.20 mm (SD =1.46); and 0.42 mm (SD =1.24) in the left-right, superior-inferior and anterior-posterior planes. Overall, we observed increasing deviations over the first 30 min followed by a stabilization related to movements in the three translational axes.

Conclusion

This is the first study to focus on intrafraction prostate motions in the context of re-irradiation. We observed that intra-fraction prostate motions persisted in the setting of re-irradiation, although they showed a significant reduction when compared with the first irradiation. These results will help to better estimate random errors during SBRT treatment of intra-prostatic recurrence after irradiation.

Phase II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy with hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer: acute toxicity and propensity score-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of a hydrogel spacer in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has not been clarified. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SBRT in combination with a hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer.

METHODS

This is a prospective single-center, single-arm phase II study. Prostate cancer patients without lymph node or distant metastasis were eligible. All patients received a hydrogel spacer insertion, followed by SBRT of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions with volumetric modulated arc therapy. The primary endpoint was physician-assessed acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity within 3 months. The secondary endpoints were physician-assessed acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity, patient-reported outcomes evaluated by the EPIC and FACT-P questionnaires, and dosimetric comparison. We used propensity score-matched analyses to compare patients with the hydrogel spacer with those without the spacer. The historical data of the control without a hydrogel spacer was obtained from our hospital's electronic records.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled between February 2017 and July 2018. A hydrogel spacer significantly reduced the dose to the rectum. Grade 2 acute GI and GU toxicity occurred in seven (18%) and 17 (44%) patients. The EPIC bowel and urinary summary score declined from the baseline to the first month (P < 0.01, < 0.01), yet it was still significantly lower in the third month (P < 0.01, P = 0.04). For propensity score-matched analyses, no significant differences in acute GI and GU toxicity were observed between the two groups. The EPIC bowel summary score was significantly better in the spacer group at 1 month (82.2 in the spacer group and 68.5 in the control group).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT with a hydrogel spacer had the dosimetric benefits of reducing the rectal doses. The use of the hydrogel spacer did not reduce physician-assessed acute toxicity, but it improved patient-reported acute bowel toxicity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration: UMIN-CTR, UMIN000026213. Registered 19 February 2017, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000029385 .

Dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review

SpaceOAR, an absorbable polyethylene glycol hydrogel, increases the space between the prostate and rectum to reduce the radiation received by the rectum during prostate cancer radiation therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate controlled studies on the dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eight studies were included in the review. All of the studies showed SpaceOAR to reduce the radiation dose volume to the rectum over numerous dosimetry levels. Of the four studies that assessed toxicity, one reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease acute Grade 1 diarrhoea and two reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease late Grade 1 and Grade ≥2 rectal toxicities. Two studies assessed cumulative incidence of toxicity at 3 years in which one reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease urinary incontinence and Grade ≥1 and Grade ≥2 rectal toxicities, and the other reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease Grade 1 diarrhoea and Grade 2 proctitis. Moreover, one study reported that fewer SpaceOAR patients experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life at 3 years, but another study reported no significant difference in 10-point declines in bowel quality of life between the SpaceOAR and control groups at 5 years. With the current research available, SpaceOAR may be beneficial to those who did not meet the standard rectal dose-volume criteria, have higher risk factors of developing rectal toxicities post-radiation, or wish to decrease the length and costs of radiotherapy by increasing the dose of radiation per fraction.

Dosimetric feasibility of neurovascular bundle-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy with periprostatic hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer to preserve erectile function

Objective:

We aim to test the hypothesis that neurovascular bundle (NVB) displacement by rectal hydrogel spacer combined with NVB delineation as an organ at risk (OAR) is a feasible method for NVB-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Methods:

Thirty-five men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent rectal hydrogel spacer placement and pre-, post-spacer prostate MRI studies were treated with prostate SBRT (36.25 Gy in five fractions). A prostate radiologist contoured the NVB on both the pre- and post-spacer T2W MRI sequences that were then registered to the CT simulation scan for NVB-sparing radiation treatment planning. Three SBRT treatment plans were developed for each patient: (1) no NVB sparing, (2) NVB-sparing using pre-spacer MRI, and (3) NVB-sparing using post-spacer MRI. NVB dose constraints include maximum dose 36.25 Gy (100%), V34.4 Gy (95% of dose) <60%, V32Gy <70%, V28Gy <90%.

Results:

Rectal hydrogel spacer placement shifted NVB contours an average of 3.1 ± 3.4 mm away from the prostate, resulting in a 10% decrease in NVB V34.4 Gy in non-NVB-sparing plans (p < 0.01). NVB-sparing treatment planning reduced the NVB V34.4 by 16% without the spacer (p < 0.01) and 25% with spacer (p < 0.001). NVB-sparing did not compromise PTV coverage and OAR endpoints.

Conclusions:

NVB-sparing SBRT with rectal hydrogel spacer significantly reduces the volume of NVB treated with high-dose radiation. Rectal spacer contributes to this effect through a dosimetrically meaningful displacement of the NVB that may significantly reduce RiED. These results suggest that NVB-sparing SBRT warrants further clinical evaluation.

Advances in knowledge:

This is a feasibility study showing that the periprostatic NVBs can be spared high doses of radiation during prostate SBRT using a hydrogel spacer and nerve-sparing treatment planning.

Rectal Dose Is the Other Dosimetric Factor in Addition to Small Bowel for Prediction of Acute Diarrhea during Postoperative Whole-Pelvic Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Gynecologic Patients

Simple Summary

Although the small bowel volume effect for acute diarrhea during radiotherapy has been investigated, no study has reported the influence of rectal dose. We analyzed 108 patients undergoing intensity-modulated radiotherapy after hysterectomy. Acute diarrhea was defined as onset during radiotherapy based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3. Both small bowel and rectum dosimetric parameters affected Grade 2 to 3 diarrhea. The high-dose volume effects on the small bowel still play an important role in postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy. This is the first large cohort study to demonstrate the role of both IMRT dosimetric factors of the rectum and the small bowel in acute diarrhea in gynecological patients with a previous hysterectomy. A small bowel volume of 39.6 Gy < 60 mL and a mean rectal dose of <32.75 Gy are suggested as constraints to treatment planning.

Abstract

We studied the association of rectal dose with acute diarrhea in patients with gynecologic malignancies undergoing whole-pelvic (WP) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). From June 2006 to April 2019, 108 patients with previous hysterectomy who underwent WP IMRT were enrolled in this cohort study. WP irradiation of 39.6–45 Gy/22–25 fractions was initially delivered to the patients. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3 was used to evaluate acute diarrhea during radiotherapy. Small bowel volume at different levels of isodose curves (Vn%) and mean rectal dose (MRD) were measured for statistical analysis. The multivariate analysis showed that the MRD ≥ 32.75 Gy (p = 0.005) and small bowel volume of 100% prescribed (V100%) ≥ 60 mL (p = 0.008) were independent factors of Grade 2 or higher diarrhea. The cumulative incidence of Grade 2 or higher diarrhea at 39.6 Gy were 70.5%, 42.2%, and 15.0% (p < 0.001) in patients with both high (V100% ≥ 60 mL and MRD ≥ 32.75 Gy), either high, and both low volume-dose factors, respectively. Strict constraints for the rectum/small bowel or image-guided radiotherapy to reduce these doses are suggested.

Utilization of Iodinated SpaceOAR Vue™ During Robotic Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) to Identify the Rectal-Prostate Interface and Spare the Rectum: A Case Report

We describe the utilization of SpaceOAR Vue™, a new iodinated rectal spacer, during Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for a Prostate Cancer Patient with a contraindication to Magnetic Resonance Imaging. A 69-year-old Caucasian male presented with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer and elected to undergo SBRT. His medical history was significant for atrial fibrillation on Rivaroxaban with a pacemaker. He was felt to be at increased risk of radiation proctitis following SBRT due to the inability to accurately contour the anterior rectal wall at the prostate apex without a treatment planning MRI and an increased risk of late rectal bleeding due to prescribed anticoagulants. In this case report, we discuss the technical aspects of appropriate placement and treatment planning for utilizing SpaceOAR Vue™ with Robotic SBRT.

Distribution analysis of hydrogel spacer and evaluation of rectal dose reduction in Japanese prostate cancer patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

To report on our primary experience with the placement of a hydrogel spacer following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients and assess its impact on dosimetry as well as acute toxicity.

METHODS

A total of 70 patients treated with SBRT (total dose of 36.25 Gy) in 5 fractions were included. Hydrogel spacers were inserted in 53 patients along with gold fiducial markers. For dosimetry, we trisected the rectum on the sagittal image of magnetic resonance imaging and defined it as the upper rectum (UR), middle rectum (MR), and lower rectum (LR). We compared the dose to each part of the rectum with and without hydrogel spacer using dose volume histograms. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity assessments were conducted until 6 months of follow-up visits.

RESULTS

The median volume of the hydrogel spacer was 12.3 mL. Overall, the hydrogel spacer could significantly reduce the rectal dose in the middle-to-high-dose region (V20-V35). The rectum doses at the UR and MR were significantly lower in the spacer group in the middle to high dose region (V20-V35); the dose at the LR was significantly lower in the spacer group in the high-dose region (V30-V35). There was no grade ≥ 3 toxicity observed, but grade 2 toxicity of GU and GI occurred in 17.1% and 1.4% of the patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hydrogel spacers could contribute to rectal dose reduction, especially in high dose regions, by creating a prostate-rectum distance.

[Dosimetric impact of hydrogel spacer use for stereotactic body radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer]

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of prostate cancer is associated with rectal toxicities, which can be reduced by using a hydrogel spacer. The object of this retrospective study was to show the feasibility of spacer placement under local anesthesia and utility of hydrogel spacer to reduce the dose to the rectal wall.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We collected data from all patients with localised prostate cancer treated with SBRT (40Gy in 5 fractions) between 2018 and 2020. A hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR®) was placed depending on the availability of the product. We collected dosimetric data for target volumes and organs at risk. We calculated mean values, which were compared using non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

Among 35 patients, mean age was 75 years. Seventeen had a spacer placed, with a mean space created of 10mm. No complication was reported during the intervention. High doses to the rectal wall were significantly lower in spacer group (V38: 0.39 cm³ vs. 0.72 cm³; P=0.02). PTV were better covered in spacer group (P=0.07). Doses to the bladder wall were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Spacer procedure under local anesthesia was well tolerated. Hydrogel spacer allowed to reduce doses to the rectum while improving PTV coverage.

Rectal spacer hydrogel in 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer: dosimetric analysis and preliminary patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of the current analysis was to explore the hypothetical advantages using rectal spacer during 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to a no-rectal spacer hydrogel cohort of patients.

METHODS

The SBRT-protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions. Herein, we present a dosimetric analysis between spacer and no-spacer patients. Furthermore, treatment tolerability and feasibility were preliminarily assessed according to clinicians-reported outcomes at the end of treatment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in both arms. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score, ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires.

RESULTS

120 plans (pre- and daily adaptive SBRT planning) were analyzed in 20 patients (10 patients in spacer group and 10 patients in no-spacer group) treated using 1.5T MR-guided adaptive SBRT. Statistically significant dosimetric advantages were observed in favor of the spacer insertion, improving the planning target volume coverage in terms of V33.2Gy >95% and planning target volume 37.5 Gy <2% mainly during daily-adapted SBRT. Also, rectum V32, V28 and V18Gy and bladder V35Gy <1 cc were significantly reduced in the spacer cohort. Concerning the PROMS, all questionnaires showed no difference between the pre- and post-SBRT evaluation in both arms, excepting the physical functioning item of EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire that was declined in the no-spacer group.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary results strongly suggest the adoption of perirectal spacer due to dosimetric advantages not only for rectal sparing but also for target coverage. Longer follow-up is required to validate the clinical impact in terms of clinicians-reported toxicity and PROMs.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This the first experience reporting preliminary data concerning the potential dosimetric impact of rectal hydrogel spacer on MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer.

Feasibility of MR-guided ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy in 5, 2 or 1 fractions for prostate cancer

The drive towards hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy is motivated by a low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer (1 to 3 Gy) compared to surrounding organs at risk, implying an improved therapeutic ratio with increasing dose per fraction. Early evidence from studies of ultrahypofractionated (UHF) prostate HDR brachytherapy has shown good tolerability in terms of normal tissue toxicities and clinical outcomes similar to conventional fractionation schedules. MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with online plan adaptation and real-time tumour imaging may enable UHF doses to be delivered to the prostate safely, without the invasiveness of brachytherapy. The feasibility of UHF prostate treatment planning for the Unity MR-Linac (MRL, Elekta AB, Stockholm) was investigated for target prescriptions and planning constraints derived from the HDR brachytherapy and SBRT literature. Monaco 5.40 (Elekta) was used to generate MRL step-and-shoot IMRT plans for three dose fractionation protocols (5, 2 and 1 fractions), for ten randomly selected previously treated prostate cancer patients. Of the ten plans per UHF scheme, all clinical goals were met in all cases for 5 fractions, and in six cases for both 2 and 1 fraction schemes. PTV D95% was compromised by up to 6.4% and 3.9% of the associated target dose for 2 and 1 fraction plans respectively. There were two cases of PTV D95% compromise greater than a 5% dose decrease for the 2 fraction plans. The study suggests feasibility of the UHF treatment planning approaches if combined with real-time motion mitigation strategies.

The use of hyperbaric oxygen to treat actinic rectal fistula after SpaceOAR use and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a case report

Background

In definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer, the SpaceOAR® System, a hydrogel spacer, is widely used to decrease the irradiated dose and toxicity of rectum. On the other hand, periprostatic abscesses formation and rectal perforation are known as rare adverse effects of SpaceOAR. Nevertheless, there is a lack of reports clarifying the association between aggravation of abscesses and radiation therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is effective for a peri-SpaceOAR abscess and rectal perforation.

Case presentation

We report a case of a 78-year-old high-risk prostate cancer patient. After SpaceOAR insertion into the correct space, he started to receive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). He developed a fever, perineal pain and frequent urination after the completion of EBRT, and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a peri-SpaceOAR abscess. Scheduled brachytherapy was postponed, administration of antibiotics and opioid via intravenous drip was commenced, and transperineal drainage was performed. After the alleviation of the abscess, additional EBRT instead of brachytherapy was performed with MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT). On the last day of the MRgRT, perineal pain reoccurred, and MRI and colonoscopy detected the rectal perforation. He received an intravenous antibiotics drip and HBOT, and fully recovered from the rectal perforation.

Conclusions

Our report indicates that EBRT can lead to a severe rectum complication by causing inflammation for patients with a peri-SpaceOAR abscess. Furthermore, HBOT was effective for the peri-SpaceOAR abscess and rectal perforation associated with EBRT.

Biochemical Control and Toxicity Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy in the Treatment of Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have both shown acceptable outcomes in the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Minimal data have been published directly comparing rates of biochemical control and toxicity with these 2 modalities. We hypothesize that LDR and SBRT will provide similar rates of biochemical control.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All low- and intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer treated definitively with SBRT or LDR between 2010 and 2018 were captured. Phoenix definition was used for biochemical failure. Independent t tests were used to compare baseline characteristics, and repeated measure analysis of variance test was used to compare American Urologic Association (AUA) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) scores between treatment arms over time. Biochemical control was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in acute and late toxicity were assessed via Pearson χ².

RESULTS

In the study, 219 and 118 patients were treated with LDR and SBRT. Median follow-up was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 3.1-6.1). All patients treated with LDR received 125.0 Gy in a single fraction. SBRT consisted of 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions. Five-year biochemical control for LDR versus SBRT was 91.6% versus 97.6% (P = .108). LDR patients had a larger increase in mean AUA scores at 1 month (17.2 vs 10.3, P < .001) and 3 months posttreatment (14.0 vs 9.7, P < .001), and in mean EPIC scores at 1 month (15.7 vs 13.8, P < .001). There was no significant difference between LDR and SBRT in late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity (0.9% vs 2.5%, P = .238); however, LDR had lower rates of late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (0.0% vs 2.5%, P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show similar biochemical control and genitourinary toxicity rates at 5 years for both SBRT and LDR, with slightly higher gastrointestinal toxicity with SBRT and higher AUA and EPIC scores with LDR.

Relationship between the invasion of lymphocytes and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment and the interval after single brachytherapy hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventional fractionation radiotherapy in non-small cell lung Cancer

Background

The effect of brachytherapy on lymphocytes and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment is unclear. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between the invasion of lymphocytes and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment and the interval after single brachytherapy hypofractionated radiotherapy (SBHFRT) and conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Lewis tumor-bearing mice were randomly divided into control, CFRT, and SBHFRT groups. On days 7 and 14 after radiation, the expression levels of CD86⁺, CD4⁺, CD8⁺, and Foxp3⁺ cells, and levels of Ki-67⁺ protein were detected by immunohistochemistry, and the tumor necrosis rate was calculated. Following this, the levels of interleukin-10 (IL-10), IL-12, and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The apoptosis rate was evaluated via flow cytometry. The tumor volume and tumor growth inhibition rate (TGIR) were calculated on day 14. Tumor metabolism was assessed via 18F-FDG micropositron emission tomography/computer tomography.

Results

The tumor volume reduced by 22.0% and TGIR increased by 92.2% (p < 0.05) in the SBHFRT group. Further, on days 7 and 14 after radiation, tumor metabolism, Ki-67⁺ and Foxp3⁺ expression levels, and IL-10 levels were lower, and tumor necrosis and apoptosis rates; CD86⁺, CD4⁺, and CD8⁺ expression levels; and IL-12 and IFN-γ levels were higher in the SBHFRT group than in the CFRT group, particularly on day 7.

Conclusion

SBHFRT could lead to more accumulation of dendritic cells, anti-tumor lymphocytes, and cytokines, and further reduce the aggregation of immunosuppressive lymphocytes and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment compared with CFRT, and the difference was the most obvious on day 7 after radiation. The clinical significance of the findings remains to be further verified.

In regard to Cuccia et al.: impact of hydrogel peri-rectal spacer insertion on prostate gland intra-fraction motion during 1.5 T MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy

We read the article entitled “Impact of hydrogel peri-rectal spacer insertion on prostate gland intra-fraction motion during 1.5 T MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy” with great interest. In that study, the author reported that there is a statistically significant difference in the rotational antero-posterior shifts between the spacer and the non-spacer groups. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of translational shifts. However, there are some points about the study. In this letter, we aimed to clarify these points.

Dosimetric effect of intrafraction motion and different localization strategies in prostate SBRT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric effect of continuous motion monitoring based localization (Calypso, Varian Medical Systems), gating and intrafraction motion correction in prostate SBRT. Delivered doses were modelled by reconstructing motion inclusive dose distributions for different localization strategies. Actually delivered dose (strategy A) utilized initial Calypso localization, CBCT and additional pre-treatment motion correction by kV-imaging and Calypso, and gating during the irradiation. The effect of gating was investigated by simulating non-gated treatments (strategy B). Additionally, non-gated and single image-guided (CBCT) localization was simulated (strategy C). A total of 308 fractions from 22 patients were reconstructed. The dosimetric effect was evaluated by comparing motion inclusive target and risk organ dose-volume parameters to planned values. Motion induced dose deficits were seen mainly in PTV and CTV to PTV margin regions, whereas CTV dose deficits were small in all strategies: mean ± SD difference in CTVD99% was -0.3 ± 0.4%, -0.4 ± 0.6% and -0.7 ± 1.2% in strategies A, B and C, respectively. Largest dose deficits were seen in individual fractions for strategy C (maximum dose reductions were -29.0% and -7.1% for PTVD95% and CTVD99%, respectively). The benefit of gating was minor, if additional motion correction was applied immediately prior to irradiation. Continuous motion monitoring based localization and motion correction ensured the target coverage and minimized the OAR exposure for every fraction and is recommended to use in prostate SBRT. The study is part of clinical trial NCT02319239.

Association of the Placement of a Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer With the Clinical Outcomes of Men Receiving Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Perirectal spacers are intended to lower the risk of rectal toxic effects associated with prostate radiotherapy. A quantitative synthesis of typical clinical results with specific perirectal spacers is limited.

Objective

To evaluate the association between perirectal hydrogel spacer placement and clinical outcomes of men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Data Sources

A systematic search was performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for articles published through September 2019.

Study Selection

Studies comparing men who received a hydrogel spacer vs men who did not receive a spacer (controls) prior to prostate radiotherapy.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Via random-effects meta-analysis, group comparisons were reported using the weighted mean difference for continuous measures and the risk ratio for binary measures.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Procedural results, the percentage volume of rectum receiving at least 70 Gy radiation (v70), early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) rectal toxic effects, and early and late changes in bowel-related quality of life on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (minimal clinically important difference, 4 points).

Results

The review included 7 studies (1 randomized clinical trial and 6 cohort studies) involving 1011 men (486 who received a hydrogel spacer and 525 controls), with a median duration of patient follow-up of 26 months (range, 3-63 months). The success rate of hydrogel spacer placement was 97.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-98.8% [5 studies]), and the weighted mean perirectal separation distance was 11.2 mm (95% CI, 10.1-12.3 mm [5 studies]). Procedural complications were mild and transient, occurring in 0% to 10% of patients within the studies. The hydrogel spacer group received 66% less v70 rectal irradiation compared with controls (3.5% vs 10.4%; mean difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -10.5% to -2.5%; P = .001 [6 studies]). The risk of grade 2 or higher rectal toxic effects was comparable between groups in early follow-up (4.5% in hydrogel spacer group vs 4.1% in control group; risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.28; P = .38 [6 studies]) but was 77% lower in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (1.5% vs 5.7%; risk ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.99; P = .05 [4 studies]). Changes in bowel-related quality of life were comparable between groups in early follow-up (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to 3.4; P = .92 [2 studies]) but were greater in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (mean difference, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.8-8.0; P < .001 [2 studies]).

Conclusions and Relevance

For men receiving prostate radiotherapy, injection of a hydrogel spacer was safe, provided prostate-rectum separation sufficient to reduce v70 rectal irradiation, and was associated with fewer rectal toxic effects and higher bowel-related quality of life in late follow-up.