|Year : 2021 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 303-310
Effectiveness of rectal displacement devices during prostate external-beam radiation therapy: A review
Mastaneh Sanei1, Hamed Ghaffari2, Mahdieh Afkhami Ardekani3, Seied Rabi Mahdavi2, Bahram Mofid4, Hamid Abdollahi5, Aram Rostami6
1 Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Para-Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar-Abbas, Iran
4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Shohada-e-Tajrish Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Radiologic Sciences and Medical Physics, Faculty of Allied Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
6 Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences; Department of Medical Physics, Roshana Cancer Institute, Tehran, Iran
|Date of Submission||09-Oct-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||07-Jan-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||11-Jun-2021|
Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Seied Rabi Mahdavi
Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran. University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy (RT) can improve treatment outcomes, but rectal toxicity is the main limiting factor for introducing dose-escalated RT. Pushing rectal wall away from the prostate reduces the volume of the rectum in high-dose region, which can decrease both short- and long-term rectal toxicities after RT. This review focuses on the literature using different rectal displacement devices such as endorectal balloons, tissue spacers, rectal retractor, and ProSpare during prostate External beam radiotherapy, with regard to dosimetric effects, clinical benefits, prostate motion, and postoperative RT setting.
Keywords: Endorectal balloon, prostate cancer, rectal retractor, rectal toxicity, tissue spacer
|How to cite this article:|
Sanei M, Ghaffari H, Ardekani MA, Mahdavi SR, Mofid B, Abdollahi H, Rostami A. Effectiveness of rectal displacement devices during prostate external-beam radiation therapy: A review. J Can Res Ther 2021;17:303-10
|How to cite this URL:|
Sanei M, Ghaffari H, Ardekani MA, Mahdavi SR, Mofid B, Abdollahi H, Rostami A. Effectiveness of rectal displacement devices during prostate external-beam radiation therapy: A review. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 23];17:303-10. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2021/17/2/303/318116
| > Introduction|| |
External-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an effective treatment approach for localized prostate cancer. Dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy (RT) has been improved the biochemical control rates but increased rectal toxicities., This risk of rectal toxicity is primary related to the anatomical proximity of the rectum and the prostate gland. Early and late RT-induced rectal toxicities lead to moderate or severe effects on patient's quality of life (QOL). As the primary efforts, gold fiducial-based image-guided RT (IGRT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and adaptive RT play a great role to reduce radiation-associated rectal complications.,, The IGRT allows for reducing the planning target volume (PTV) margin, resulting in reducing rectal toxicity, and more rectal sparing can be achieved using IMRT.,,
Recently, several studies have demonstrated that physical displacement of the rectum from the prostate is an effective method to reduce the rectal dose. According to this, rectal displacement devices (RDDs) such as endorectal balloons (ERBs), tissue spacers, rectal retractor (RR), and ProSpare are introduced to limit rectal exposure dose because these technologies push the rectal wall away from the prostate and reduce the volume of the rectum receiving high-radiation doses.,,,,,
The aim of this review is to critically synthesize the literature on the use of RDDs during prostate EBRT with regard to dosimetric effects, clinical benefits, inter-/intra-fraction prostate motion, and postoperative RT setting.
| > Rectal Displacement Devices|| |
To spare rectum, several RDDs are introduced which are divided into ERBs, tissue spacers, RR, and ProSpare. ERBs have two main parts, including balloon and shaft; the balloon is made by latex or silicon. ERBs have been used during prostate RT as prostate stabilizer, have been used to reduce the prostate movement, and have also been used as rectal wall sparing technique. The deflated ERB is placed into the rectum and inflated with air or water. As a consequence, it pushes the lateral rectal wall and the posterior rectal wall (PRW) away from the high-dose areas., A possible radiobiological reason for using an ERB can be associated with hypoxia in the rectal wall that is generated by stretching of the rectal wall, when an ERB is inflated and therefore leads to radioresistance of the rectal wall.
To our knowledge, as displayed in [Figure 1], there are four types of tissue spacers, including polyethylene glycol (PEG)-hydrogel, biodegradable balloon, hyaluronic acid (HA), and collagen, that these biomaterials implant or inject in the space between Denonvilliers fascia and the anterior rectal wall (ARW) and increase the distance from the prostate to the ARW.,,,, The implantation or injection of these biomaterials is performed under local or general anesthesia. Patient is placed in the lithotomy position, and interstitial needle is inserted into the perirectal fat under transrectal ultrasound guidance; therefore, the procedure is invasive.,
An alternative method to ERB and tissue spacers for the rectum dose sparing is an RR that pushes the PRW away from the prostate. The RR consists of a rectal rod that inserts into the rectum in the supine or decubitus position. Then, it affixes to a vertical looking column to use to retract the rectum in the posterior direction. The vertical looking column fixes to a carbon-fiber base plate. The magnitude of retraction is determined by patient discomfort. In daily treatment, the position of RR reproduces like planning computed tomography (CT). The diameter of the rectal rod is 15 or 20 mm that is made of water-equivalent plastic such as Perspex.,,,
Recently, ProSpare has been introduced at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. ProSpare is a novel rectal obturator that inserted into the rectum by the patient before planning CT and RT sessions and increases the distance between the ARW and the PRW. It is disposable and is made of Empera resin. Further, it provides guidance on the position of the ARW and the prostate localization due to series of radiopaque markers on the anterior and posterior (AP) wall of this device. There are three abstracts that address using a ProSpare.,,
| > The Effect of Rectal Displacement Devices on Rectal Dose Reduction and Rectal Toxicity|| |
Several groups of investigators investigated the effect of RDDs on the rectal wall dose. In prostate three-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT), an ERB with intermediate volume (60 mL) significantly decreased the dose to the PRW. The volume of ERB related to the volume of the clinical target volume (CTV). As demonstrated in several studies, it is necessary to select an ERB with intermediate volume (60 mL) when the CTV includes the seminal vesicles. van Lin et al. compared three different types of ERBs (40, 80, and 100 mL) in both four-field 3DCRT and IMRT. In 3DCRT plan with different PTVs, using of each ERB led to significant reduction in the mean rectal wall dose, mean rectal wall volume receiving ≥50 Gy (V50 Gy) and ≥70 Gy (V70 Gy), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of the rectal wall in comparison with non-ERB group. In IMRT plans, they observed no statistically significant reduction in the rectal wall mean dose and NTCP of rectal wall by three types of the ERBs. Furthermore, the ERB could reduce the anal wall dose in prostate EBRT. Using an ERB resulted in an absolute reduction 12 and 7.5 Gy of anal wall mean dose in 3DCRT and IMRT, respectively. On reducing rectal dose using tissue spacers during IMRT and 3DCRT, a prospective multicenter clinical trial by Song et al. involving 52 patients receiving IMRT for prostate cancer (39 Gy × 2 Gy) showed a reduction in the rectal V70 Gy ≥25% in 95.7% of patients after injection of PEG-hydrogel. After spacer implantation, for V70 Gy, a 60.7% relative reduction was found (13% vs. 5.1%). The reduction in the rectal volume receiving high-radiation doses by tissue spacers directly is associated with a mean prostate–rectum separation of 10 mm after tissue spacer implantation. In prostate, IMRT with ProSpare also found a significant reduction in the minimum dose to the rectum and the anal V40–65 Gy (P = 0.043). In addition, the mean rectal surface doses were significantly reduced (P = 0.001).
There are conflicting reports on the impact of an ERB on reducing dose to the rectum in prostate stereotactic body RT (SBRT). Although using an ERB significantly reduced the rectal and the ARW dose during prostate SBRT with CyberKnife, these results did not reproduce during gantry-based RapidArc prostate SBRT. These differences can be associated with dose delivery technique. In contrast to gantry-based RapidArc SBRT, using noncoplanar nonisocentric beams in CyberKnife-based SBRT can improve rectal sparing. However, further studies are required to elucidate the benefits of ERBs during prostate SBRT. A comparative study between the RR and PEG-hydrogel was performed by Wilton et al. A significant reduction of rectal V30–80% could be detected with both devices in cases SBRT. Findings showed that RR could decrease further the volume of the rectum irradiated to low and intermediated doses than hydrogel spacer during SBRT. In another comparative study, data showed that using PEG-hydrogel outperformed the ERB in any measured rectal dose metrics during prostate SBRT. Furthermore, few studies of RDDs have been published with prostate proton therapy with promising results.,,,
Although there are many studies on the effect of ERBs on the rectal dosimetry, clinical outcomes reported with using ERBs in a two-arm study are rare. A comparative study only indicated that late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity reduced in prostate 3DCRT with ERB in comparison to without ERB. In study van Lin et al., two cohorts of 24 patients with and without an ERB treated with 3DCRT to a dose 67.5 Gy in 30 fractions. Endoscopic examinations of the patients were compared. The results showed that there were no significant differences in acute rectal toxicity between two groups. Late rectal toxicity (Grade ≥1) was significantly lower in the ERB group, and no patients had Grade ≥2 late rectal toxicity. Using an ERB reduced significantly high-grade telangiectasia. In contrast with ERBs, several comparative studies evaluating the effect of tissue spacers in regard of toxicity have been performed until now. A pivotal prospective multicenter single-blind randomized controlled trial (149 with PEG-hydrogel and 73 without) has reported that acute rectal toxicity rates were similar between groups at 3 months after RT. After a median follow-up of 15 months, late rectal toxicity of Grade 1 significantly reduced (by 75%) in the spacer arm, and no Grade ≥2 late rectal toxicity was observed in spacer group. This study was first and only randomized trial of PEG-hydrogel spacer. In addition, Folkert et al. have reported the first prospectively data of PEG-hydrogel spacer with high-dose SBRT. Forty-four patients underwent prostate SBRT with a total dose of 45 in 5 fractions, and at 12 months, no acute or late Grade ≥3 GI toxicity was reported.
With regard to bowel QOL, studies have reported that there was an improvement in bowel QOL score for patients with tissue spacer.,, The data of a prospective cohort study of 167 patients (101 with PEG-hydrogel and 66 without) with prostate cancer treated with IMRT or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using a spacer gel have shown that the frequency of treatment for bowel symptoms and endoscopic examinations were significantly less for the spacer arm. At 17 months, the patients with at least a 10-point decline of bowel scores were significantly (P < 0.01) smaller for spacer group compared to nonspacer group. A bowel bother score change >10 points was reported in 5% of the patients with spacer versus 14% of the patients without spacer (P = 0.2) at 63 months. Studies have shown that the rate of Grade ≥1 and Grade ≥2 late rectal toxicities was statistically significant reduced by hydrogel spacer.,, Through 37 months, 2.0% and 9.2% of spacer and control arm, respectively, experienced Grade ≥1 late rectal toxicity (P = 0.028), and there was no Grade ≥2 late rectal toxicity in the spacer arm (0.0% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.012). The rectum is a late responding tissue (low α/β ratio), and RT-induced rectal damage is a late effect therefore higher grade of late rectal toxicity occurs at longer follow-up duration (1.5–4.5 years). A summary of clinical studies that have reported the acute and late GI toxicities in patients with PEG-hydrogel injection is outlined in [Table 1].
|Table 1: Gastrointestinal toxicity reports with polyethylene glycol -hydrogel|
Click here to view
Although using an RR during proton boost (4 Gy × 5 Gy) has caused that the rectal doses reduced for the combined standard photon beam therapy (25 Gy × 2 Gy) and proton boost, these results did not translate into the reduction in the rectal toxicity. A recent study has shown that the application of RR during dose-escalated prostate IGRT improved acute rectal toxicities, and no Grade ≥2 acute rectal toxicities during treatment were observed. However, further randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are required to elucidate the clinical advantages of RR. Furthermore, there were several reports that showed the role of RDDs on postprostatectomy RT setting with promising results,,,, as outlined in [Supplementary Table 1]. This promising area can encourage investigators for future studies with different types of RDDs.
| > The Effect of Rectal Displacement Devices on the Prostate Motion|| |
Many reports evaluated the movement of the prostate gland in prostate EBRT using various imaging techniques.,, The magnitude of prostate motion is large at AP direction, owing to vary filling of the rectum and bladder. Understanding the impact of RDDs on the prostate motion clinically is important because this motion has a detrimental effect on the PTV margins. If these RDDs reduce the prostate motion, the need for imaging during treatment will be low, and also, a tight PTV margin can define that it can decrease RT-induced rectal toxicity in turn. With regard to ERBs, when an ERB is inflated, it pushes the prostate gland toward pubic symphysis and can reduce the prostate displacement during daily treatment. Several studies have been shown ERBs as a prostate immobilizer device that could reduce inter-/intra-fraction motion., Published studies have demonstrated that ERBs significantly reduced the intra-fraction prostate motion, but some studies reported that ERBs eliminate the inter-fractional prostate motion that can be associated with variations of daily ERB insertion and inappropriate rectal preparation., 3D prostate shift >5 mm reduced from 3.1%–4.6% to 0.7% in the treatment time more than 6 min using an ERB, and a 5-mm internal margin could be enough for the intra-fraction prostate motion. Compared with ERBs, tissue spacers did not have any effect on the prostate motion; however, a study found that tissue spacers had a potential in the reduction of prostate displacement in the posterior direction.
Using an RR increased the intra-fractional reproducibility of the rectal wall position, and it can prevent variations of the rectal volume. As a consequence, it can immobilize the prostate. Several studies have quantified prostate motion during VMAT with RR.,, Although it has indicated the average 3D prostate displacement >3 was rare compared to the patients without RR, a study did not confirm the role of RR in reduction of intra-fraction prostate motion that this controversy can be associated with different preparation regimens before treatment. The impact of a ProSpare on the inter-fraction prostate and seminal vesicles motion has been studied. The analysis pretreatment cone-beam CT datasets showed that a ProSpare could reduce the inter-fraction prostate and seminal vesicles motion. This can be associated with less variations of the rectal volume due to daily insertion of a ProSpare that increases the reproducibility of rectal position.
| > Patient's Tolerance, Workload, and Clinical Practice|| |
Several studies reported that ERBs were well tolerated by patients. In a study with large sample size, more than 97% of the patients tolerated ERB throughout treatment days. The insertion of ERB was facilitated by lubrication gel, and it sometimes is necessary to use a lidocaine jelly for avoidance of the rectal irritation. For hygienic reasons, it is better to use disposable ERB; however, an ERB per patient covered by condom can use for the entire treatment. There was no relationship between the age and ERB tolerance. The application of an ERB should be cautioned in patients with painful and bleeding hemorrhoids. Placing an ERB into the rectum at the all treatment sessions by a person can prevent the incorrect ERB insertion. The process of ERB and RR insertion into the rectum is time consuming and adds 3–4 min to daily treatment setup time. It seems that the insertion of ProSpare also is time-consuming; however, studies have not mentioned it. Of note, rectal wall delineation is essential to clearly understand the impact of ERB, RR, and ProSpare on reducing rectal radiation doses.
The stability of the space between the rectum and the prostate by tissue spacer during the RT course in achieving the expected results is an important factor that several reports have addressed this topic. The data have shown that tissue spacers were stable during the RT course by periodic imaging, and overall PEG-hydrogel, biodegradable balloon, and collagen completely absorbed at 6–12 months.,,,
Overall, complications directly associated with the placement of tissue spacers are rare, and implantation or injection of tissue spacers is well tolerated. Only PEG-based hydrogel (SpaceOAR™ Augmenix, Waltham, MA, USA) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and has a safe and feasible application technique.,, However, a recent study by Dinh et al. reported a case of rectal ulcer (Grade 3 complication according to the CTCAE) after prostate IMRT with PEG-hydrogel in-place. With regard to using biodegradable balloon, HA, and collagen, few studies have reported that hematuria, transit mild pain, urinary retention, penile bleeding, dysuria, nocturia, asthenia, and hematoma were found in some cases., Furthermore, Schörghofer et al. have recently reported that overall complication rate following tissue spacer placement is below 2%. In that study, six cases experienced rectal perforation and uretheral damage following the implantation of biodegradeable balloon. Daily application of the RR during the therapy can be stopped because this device is in direct contact with the rectal wall and daily insertion along with inflammation of the rectal mucus with irradiation leads to the anal and rectal irritation. In addition, the same effect can observe with daily insertion of EBRs and ProSpare.
Among different tissue spacers, the implantation of PEG-hydrogel is time limited because it polymerizes at few seconds (approximately 8–10 s). Biodegradable balloon can easily be visualized on the CT images in contrast to other types of the tissue spacers and can be helpful in delineating the ARW similar to ERBs. The application of biodegradable balloon is more invasive as compared to other tissue spacers and RDDs due to perineal incision, and also, in situ correction can only be performed on it in contrast to other tissue spacers. The implantation of tissue spacers is not successful in all cases. To date, the rate of successful implantation of biodegradable balloon and PEG-hydrogel has been reported to be over 91%. Furthermore, there are some potential caveats or disadvantages in RDDs application, as outlined in [Supplementary Table 2].
| > Cost-Effectiveness|| |
At present, the utilization of IMRT or IGRT in the prostate cancer treatment has resulted in lower Grade 2–3 rectal toxicities., Furthermore, studies have shown that desirable clinical outcomes using tissue spacers did not achieve for all cases (for approximately 20% of the patients, reducing toxicity risk was observed). Furthermore, Jones et al. reported that the cost of ERB was $373.38 for six treatment sessions and the cost of one kit for the injectable spacer gel was $2850.00. Therefore, using tissue spacers in the routine clinical setting may not be cost-effective. Because these procedures are invasive and expensive, it is necessary to consider a decision analysis model for spacer implantation. Although the use of rectal spacer in conventional prostate RT is expensive, it is immediately cost-effective in high-dose extremely hypofractionated prostate RT. Contrast with ERBs and tissue spacers, the RR is one-off department purchase, and also, the RR has a great potential in reducing the surgical risk and cost compared to tissue spacers; however, the effect of a RR on late rectal toxicities is unclear. With respect to published studies, tissue spacers should be used for well -selected prostate patients, for example, low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in dose-escalated RT (76 Gy or more with standard RT regimen). The cost-effectiveness of tissue spacers in patients with diabetes, active bleeding disorders, and inflammatory bowel diseases is not clear. As demonstrated in a recent study and based on 2018 Physician Fee Schedule, the hydrogel spacer can be cost-effective in men with good sexual function, provided patients are willing to pay $100,000.
| > Conclusion and Future Perspective|| |
There are several factors that should be considered when RDDs are used, including economic situation, equipment of department, clinical risk factors, workload of department, experience and training, patient willingness and collaboration, staff motivation, and complications related to procedure of RDDs. In localized prostate cancer EBRT, dose intensification, adequate PTV margin, and rectal tolerance dose (it also affects the two first factors) are the main issues. At the first glance, a proper RDD should be able to resolve above-mentioned factors.
Based on investigated end-points in the current review, the hydrogel spacer is superior in comparison with the other RDDs regarding rectal dose sparing and QOL outcomes. Furthermore, it has a minimal invasive procedure that is comparable with a gold fiducial markers' implantation. Furthermore, a reduction in the posterior displacement of prostate was reported by the hydrogel spacer. The majority of reports on tissue spacer technology showed that implantation or injection of tissue spacers is safe and effective, as well as well tolerated. However, cases of rectal ulceration/perforation have been reported. The implantation of a tissue spacer between the prostate and rectum results in statistically significant reduction in the volume of the rectal wall within high-dose radiation. The data from clinical trials have shown that the implantation of hydrogel spacer can improve QOL for prostate cancer patients after RT. Although the application of hydrogel spacer reduced acute rectal toxicities, a statistically significant difference was not observed between spacer and control groups. A possible reason for justifying this issue can be attributed to sigmoid colon or small bowel irradiation during RT that lead to acute toxicities. In the current prostate EBRT practices that involve IG-IMRT, the risk of moderate-to-severe long-term rectal morbidity is low. The hydrogel spacer significantly reduces the low risk of morbidity. The results from randomized controlled clinical trial demonstrated that the rate of Grade ≥2 late rectal toxicity was not observed in the spacer arm at 37 months' follow-up.
A promising approach to reduce the rectal wall doses and prostate inter-/intra-fraction movements in a cost-effective manner is RR, but RCTs will be required to clear its effect on QOL improvement. The primary aim of the use of ERBs is reducing intra-fraction motion of the prostate, and also, the PRW dose is reduced by ERBs as a secondary aim. Daily application of ERBs and RR is time-consuming, and daily irradiation and repeated physical insertion of ERBs and RR may lead to anal and rectal irritation. Daily reproducibility of ERB position is low that should be accompanied by image guidance techniques. Studies on ProSpare are very few and its efficacy is not clear. Patients may not tolerate daily application of RR, ERB, and ProSpare during prostate EBRT with conventional regimen. Although the application of hydrogel spacers during prostate brachytherapy is outside the scope of this review, hydrogel spacers have a significant effect on reducing rectal doses and toxicities during prostate brachytherapy. Overall, RDDs have a critical role in prostate EBRT because these technologies can improve therapeutic ratio.
Reports on RDDs in postprostatectomy RT setting are very rare. The application of ERBs resulted in reducing anorectal dose, but geometric and dosimetric reproducibility of the CTV is controversial by ERBs. The results of using hydrogel spacers are also promising. Further clinical studies are required to elucidate the role of RDDs in postprostatectomy RT.
There are many challenges for RT physicist and radiation oncologist in prostate RT, including geometric uncertainties, sparing of the rectum, and prescription dose. In addition, the field of prostate RT is moving toward hypofractionated regimens and high conformal techniques that considering prostate displacement, setup reproducibility and rectum sparing are important. Therefore, RDDs will play a critical role during prostate RT in the next few years, and also, clinical experience with RDDs will increase. RCTs will be required to well elucidate clinical benefits of these technologies in contrast to treatment without these devices. There is an important role and a great potential for using RDDs in prostate reirradiation that studies will increase in this area in the next years.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| > Supplementary Table|| |
| > References|| |
- Smeenk RJ, van Lin EN, van Kollenburg P, McColl GM, Kunze-Busch M, Kaanders JH. Endorectal balloon reduces anorectal doses in post-prostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2011;101:465-70.
- Jameson MG, De Leon J, Windsor AA, Cloak K, Keats S, Dowling JA, et al. Endorectal balloons in the post prostatectomy setting: Do gains in stability lead to more predictable dosimetry? Radiother Oncol 2013;109:493-7.
- Streller T, Rusch U, Herraiz Lablanca MD, Minneken I, Najafi Y, Shrestha B, et al. The effect of endorectal balloon on anorectal dose during postoperative volumetric arc radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2017;123:454-8.
- Ishiyama H, Teh BS, Blanco AI, Paulino AC, Mai WY, Caillouet J, et al. Salvage intensity modulated radiotherapy using endorectal balloon after radical prostatectomy: Clinical outcomes. Int J Urol 2013;20:1178-83.
- de Leon JF, Jameson MG, Windsor A, Cloak K, Keats S, Vial P, et al. Superior target volume and organ stability with the use of endorectal balloons in post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015;59:507-13.
- Joo JH, Kim YJ, Kim YS, Cho YP, Lee HY, Jeong CY, et al. Analysis of prostate bed motion using an endorectal balloon and cone beam computed tomography during postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Onco Targets Ther 2016;9:3095-100.
- Swisher-McClure S, Yin L, Rosen M, Batra S, Berman AT, Both S, et al. Prospective MRI-based imaging study to assess feasibility of proton therapy for post-prostatectomy radiation. Acta Oncol 2016;55:828-33.
- Pinkawa M, Schubert C, Escobar-Corral N, Holy R, Eble MJ. Application of a hydrogel spacer for postoperative salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2015;191:375-9.
- Lehrich BM, Moyses HM, Ravera J, Yoshida J, Torrey R, Baghdassarian R, et al. Five-year results of post-prostatectomy patients administered a hydrogel rectal spacer implant in conjunction with dose escalated external beam radiation therapy. J Radiat Oncol 2018;8:31-8.
- Ghaffari H, Afkhami Ardekani M, Molana SH, Haghparast M, Sanei M, Mahdavi SR, et al. Application of rectal retractor for postprostatectomy salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer: A case report and literature review. Clin Case Rep 2019;7:2102-7.
- Jones BL, Gan G, Kavanagh B, Miften M. Effect of endorectal balloon positioning errors on target deformation and dosimetric quality during prostate SBRT. Phys Med Biol 2013;58:7995-8006.
- Court LE, D'Amico AV, Kadam D, Cormack R. Motion and shape change when using an endorectal balloon during prostate radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2006;81:184-9.
- Elsayed H, Bolling T, Moustakis C, Muller SB, Schuller P, Ernst I, et al. Organ movements and dose exposures in teletherapy of prostate cancer using a rectal balloon. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:617-24.
- Pinkawa M, Bornemann C, Escobar-Corral N, Piroth MD, Holy R, Eble MJ. Treatment planning after hydrogel injection during radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2013;189:796-800.
- Dinh TK, Schade G, Liao JJ. A case of rectal ulcer during IMRT for prostate cancer using hydrogel spacer. Urol Pract 2020;7:158-61.
- Schörghofer A, Drerup M, Kunit T, Lusuardi L, Holzinger J, Karner J, et al. Rectum-spacer related acute toxicity – Endoscopy results of 403 prostate cancer patients after implantation of gel or balloon spacers. Radiat Oncol 2019;14:47.
- Ghaffari H. Rectal wall delineation in patients with a rectal displacement device in place during prostate cancer radiotherapy. J Radiat Oncol 2019 8:103-4.
- Mahdavi SR, Ghaffari H, Mofid B, Rostami A, Reiazi R, Janani L. Rectal retractor application during image-guided dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2019;195:923-33.
- Alexander E, McNair H, Landeg S, Hansen V, Dearnaley D. Initial results of a prospective clinical trial examining a novel rectal obturator to localise the prostate and spare the rectum during radical prostate radiotherapy. Clinical Oncology 2014;26:e3.
| > References|| |
Dolezel M, Odrazka K, Zouhar M, Vaculikova M, Sefrova J, Jansa J, et al
. Comparing morbidity and cancer control after 3D-conformal (70/74 Gy) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (78/82 Gy) for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2015;191:338-46.
Cavey ML, Bayouth JE, Colman M, Endres EJ, Sanguineti G. IMRT to escalate the dose to the prostate while treating the pelvic nodes. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181:431-41.
Millar J, Williams S. In regard to Pollack et al
., prostate cancer radiation dose response: Results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. IJROBP 2002;53:1097-1105. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:1461.
Mahdavi SR, Ghaffari H, Mofid B, Rostami A, Reiazi R, Janani L. Rectal retractor application during image-guided dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2019;195:923-33.
Rudat V, Nour A, Hammoud M, Alaradi A, Mohammed A. Image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer: Analysis of interfractional errors and acute toxicity. Strahlenther Onkol 2016;192:109-17.
Piziorska M, Kukołowicz P, Zawadzka A, Pilichowska M, Pęczkowski P. Adaptive off-line protocol for prostate external radiotherapy with cone beam computer tomography. Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188:1003-9.
Ghaffari H, Navaser M, Mofid B, Mahdavi SR, Mohammadi R, Tavakol A. Fiducial markers in prostate cancer image-guided radiotherapy. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2019;33:80-6.
Pinkawa M, Piroth MD, Holy R, Djukic V, Klotz J, Krenkel B, et al
. Combination of dose escalation with technological advances (intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy) is not associated with increased morbidity for patients with prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2011;187:479-84.
Jereczek-Fossa BA, Pobbiati C, Santoro L, Fodor C, Fanti P, Vigorito S, et al
. Prostate positioning using cone-beam computer tomography based on manual soft-tissue registration: Interobserver agreement between radiation oncologists and therapists. Strahlenther Onkol 2014;190:81-7.
Hille A, Schmidberger H, Tows N, Weiss E, Vorwerk H, Hess CF. The impact of varying volumes in rectal balloons on rectal dose sparing in conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer. A prospective three-dimensional analysis. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181:709-16.
Pinkawa M, Bornemann C, Escobar-Corral N, Piroth MD, Holy R, Eble MJ. Treatment planning after hydrogel injection during radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2013;189:796-800.
Alexander E, McNair H, Landeg S, Hansen V, Dearnaley D. Initial results of a prospective clinical trial examining a novel rectal obturator to localise the prostate and spare the rectum during radical prostate radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 2014;26:e3.
Goldner G, Bombosch V, Geinitz H, Becker G, Wachter S, Glocker S, et al
. Moderate risk-adapted dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer from 70 to 74 Gy. First report on 5-year morbidity and biochemical control from a prospective Austrian-German multicenter phase II trial. Strahlenther Onkol 2009;185:94-100.
Ghaffari H, Mofid B, Mahdavi SR, Rostami A. The effect of Rectal Retractor, a rectal protector on rectal dose in radical prostate radiotherapy. Iran J Med Phys 2018;15:225.
van Lin EN, Hoffmann AL, van Kollenburg P, Leer JW, Visser AG. Rectal wall sparing effect of three different endorectal balloons in 3D conformal and IMRT prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:565-76.
Xiang HF, Lu HM, Efstathiou JA, Zietman AL, De Armas R, Harris K, et al
. Dosimetric impacts of endorectal balloon in CyberKnife stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage prostate cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017;18:37-43.
van Lin EN, Kristinsson J, Philippens ME, de Jong DJ, van der Vight LP, Kaanders JH, et al
. Reduced late rectal mucosal changes after prostate three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with endorectal balloon as observed in repeated endoscopy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:799-811.
Vanneste BG, van Wijk Y, Lutgens LC, van Limbergen EJ, van Lin EN, van de Beek K, et al
. Dynamics of rectal balloon implant shrinkage in prostate VMAT: Influence on anorectal dose and late rectal complication risk. Strahlenther Onkol 2018;194:31-40.
Chapet O, Decullier E, Bin S, Faix A, Ruffion A, Jalade P, et al
. Prostate hypofractionated radiation therapy with injection of hyaluronic acid: Acute toxicities in a phase 2 study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;91:730-6.
Noyes WR, Hosford CC, Schultz SE. Human collagen injections to reduce rectal dose during radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:1918-22.
Afkhami Ardekani M, Ghaffari H. Optimization of prostate brachytherapy techniques with polyethylene glycol-based hydrogel spacers: A systematic review. Brachytherapy 2020;19:13-23.
Ghaffari H, Mahdavi S, Mofid B, Reiazi R. Rectal sparing using a rectal retractor during dose escalated prostate radiotherapy. Med Phys 2018;45:e254.
Isacsson U, Nilsson K, Asplund S, Morhed E, Montelius A, Turesson I. A method to separate the rectum from the prostate during proton beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2010;49:500-5.
Murray JR, Gulliford S, Alexander EJ, McNair H, Dearnaley DP. P028 The effect of ProSpare, a rectal obturator on anorectal doses in prostate radiotherapy. Eur Urol Suppl 2014;13:119.
Murray J, McNair H, Alexander E, Thomas K, Dearnaley D. ProSpare, a rectal obturator and its effect on prostate and seminal vesicle interfraction motion. Clin Oncol 2016;28:e13-4.
Elsayed H, Bolling T, Moustakis C, Müller SB, Schüller P, Ernst I, et al
. Organ movements and dose exposures in teletherapy of prostate cancer using a rectal balloon. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:617-24.
Smeenk RJ, van Lin EN, van Kollenburg P, Kunze-Busch M, Kaanders JH. Anal wall sparing effect of an endorectal balloon in 3D conformal and intensity-modulated prostate radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2009;93:131-6.
Song DY, Herfarth KK, Uhl M, Eble MJ, Pinkawa M, van Triest B, et al
. A multi-institutional clinical trial of rectal dose reduction via injected polyethylene-glycol hydrogel during intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Analysis of dosimetric outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;87:81-7.
Wong AT, Schreiber D, Agarwal M, Polubarov A, Schwartz D. Impact of the use of an endorectal balloon on rectal dosimetry during stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016;6:262-7.
Wilton L, Richardson M, Keats S, Legge K, Hanlon MC, Arumugam S, et al
. Rectal protection in prostate stereotactic radiotherapy: A retrospective exploratory analysis of two rectal displacement devices. J Med Radiat Sci 2017;64:266-73.
Jones RT, Hassan Rezaeian N, Desai NB, Lotan Y, Jia X, Hannan R, et al
. Dosimetric comparison of rectal-sparing capabilities of rectal balloon vs injectable spacer gel in stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Lessons learned from prospective trials. Med Dosim 2017;42:341-7.
Vargas C, Mahajan C, Fryer A, Indelicato D, Henderson RH, McKenzie C, et al
. Rectal dose-volume differences using proton radiotherapy and a rectal balloon or water alone for the treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:1110-6.
Chung H, Polf J, Badiyan S, Biagioli M, Fernandez D, Latifi K, et al
. Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017;18:32-9.
Navaratnam A, Cumsky J, Abdul-Muhsin H, Gagneur J, Shen J, Kosiorek H, et al
. Assessment of Polyethylene Glycol Hydrogel Spacer and Its Effect on Rectal Radiation Dose in Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Proton Beam Radiation Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2020;5:92-100.
Mariados N, Sylvester J, Shah D, Karsh L, Hudes R, Beyer D, et al
. Hydrogel spacer prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial: Dosimetric and clinical effects of perirectal spacer application in men undergoing prostate image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;92:971-7.
Folkert MR, Zelefsky MJ, Hannan R, Desai NB, Lotan Y, Laine AM, et al
. Multi-institutional phase 2 trial of high-dose stereotactic body radiation therapy with temporary hydrogel spacer for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;99:1319-20.
Hamstra DA, Mariados N, Sylvester J, Shah D, Karsh L, Hudes R, et al
. Continued benefit to rectal separation for prostate radiation therapy: Final results of a phase III trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;97:976-85.
Pinkawa M, Piroth MD, Holy R, Escobar-Corral N, Caffaro M, Djukic V, et al
. Quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer with a hydrogel spacer. Matched-pair analysis. Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188:917-25.
Pinkawa M, Berneking V, Konig L, Frank D, Bretgeld M, Eble MJ. Hydrogel injection reduces rectal toxicity after radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2017;193:22-8.
Pieczonka CM, Mariados N, Sylvester JE, Karsh LI, Hudes RS, Beyer DC, et al
. Hydrogel spacer application technique, patient tolerance and impact on prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy: Results from a prospective, multicenter, pivotal randomized controlled trial. Urol Practice 2016;3:141-6.
Uhl M, Herfarth K, Eble MJ, Pinkawa M, van Triest B, Kalisvaart R, et al
. Absorbable hydrogel spacer use in men undergoing prostate cancer radiotherapy: 12 month toxicity and proctoscopy results of a prospective multicenter phase II trial. Radiat Oncol 2014;9:96.
Whalley D, Hruby G, Alfieri F, Kneebone A, Eade T. SpaceOAR Hydrogel in Dose-escalated Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: Rectal Dosimetry and Late Toxicity. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2016;28:e148-54.
Johansson S, Astrom L, Sandin F, Isacsson U, Montelius A, Turesson I. Hypofractionated proton boost combined with external beam radiotherapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer 2012;2012:654861.
Pinkawa M, Schubert C, Escobar-Corral N, Holy R, Eble MJ. Application of a hydrogel spacer for postoperative salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2015;191:375-9.
Streller T, Rusch U, Herraiz Lablanca MD, Minneken I, Najafi Y, Shrestha B, et al
. The effect of endorectal balloon on anorectal dose during postoperative volumetric arc radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2017;123:454-8.
Ghaffari H. Is there a role for hydrogel spacer in post-prostatectomy radiotherapy setting? Radiol Med 2019;124:1062-3.
Ghaffari H, Afkhami Ardekani M, Molana SH, Haghparast M, Sanei M, Mahdavi SR, et al
. Application of rectal retractor for postprostatectomy salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer: A case report and literature review. Clin Case Rep 2019;7:2102-7.
Wang KK, Vapiwala N, Deville C, Plastaras JP, Scheuermann R, Lin H, et al
. A study to quantify the effectiveness of daily endorectal balloon for prostate intrafraction motion management. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:1055-63.
El-Bassiouni M, Davis JB, El-Attar I, Studer GM, Lutolf UM, Ciernik IF. Target motion variability and on-line positioning accuracy during external-beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer with an endorectal balloon device. Strahlenther Onkol 2006);182:531-6.
Pinkawa M, Pursch-Lee M, Asadpour B, Gagel B, Piroth MD, Klotz J, et al
. Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Implementation of ultrasound-based prostate localization for the analysis of inter- and intrafraction organ motion. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:679-85.
Jones BL, Gan G, Kavanagh B, Miften M. Effect of endorectal balloon positioning errors on target deformation and dosimetric quality during prostate SBRT. Phys Med Biol 2013;58:7995-8006.
Juneja P, Kneebone A, Booth JT, Thwaites DI, Kaur R, Colvill E, et al
. Prostate motion during radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients with and without application of a hydrogel spacer: A comparative study. Radiat Oncol 2015;10:215.
Pinkawa M, Piroth MD, Holy R, Escobar-Corral N, Caffaro M, Djukic V, et al
. Spacer stability and prostate position variability during radiotherapy for prostate cancer applying a hydrogel to protect the rectal wall. Radiother Oncol 2013;106:220-4.
Nicolae A, Davidson M, Easton H, Helou J, Musunuru H, Loblaw A, et al
. Clinical evaluation of an endorectal immobilization system for use in prostate hypofractionated Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR). Radiat Oncol 2015;10:122.
Legge K, Nguyen D, Ng JA, Wilton L, Richardson M, Booth J, et al
. Real-time intrafraction prostate motion during linac based stereotactic radiotherapy with rectal displacement. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017;18:130-6.
Vanhanen A, Kapanen M. The effect of rectal retractor on intrafraction motion of the prostate. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2016;2:035021.
Bastasch MD, Teh BS, Mai WY, McGary JE, Grant WH 3rd
, Butler EB. Tolerance of endorectal balloon in 396 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2006;29:8-11.
Ghaffari H. Rectal wall delineation in patients with a rectal displacement device in place during prostate cancer radiotherapy. J Radiat Oncol 2019;8:103-104.
Ward CW. Aminopeptidases in webbing clothes moth larvae. Properties and specificities of the enzymes of intermediate electrophoretic mobility. Biochim Biophys Acta 1975;410:361-9.
Schörghofer A, Drerup M, Kunit T, Lusuardi L, Holzinger J, Karner J, et al
. Rectum-spacer related acute toxicity - endoscopy results of 403 prostate cancer patients after implantation of gel or balloon spacers. Radiat Oncol 2019;14:47.
Guckenberger M, Ok S, Polat B, Sweeney RA, Flentje M. Toxicity after intensity-modulated, image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2010;186:535-43.
Vanneste BG, Hoffmann AL, van Lin EN, van De Voorde L, Pinkawa M, Lambin P. Who will benefit most from hydrogel rectum spacer implantation in prostate cancer radiotherapy? A model-based approach for patient selection. Radiother Oncol 2016;121:118-23.
van Wijk Y, Vanneste BGL, Walsh S, van der Meer S, Ramaekers B, van Elmpt W, et al
. Development of a virtual spacer to support the decision for the placement of an implantable rectum spacer for prostate cancer radiotherapy: Comparison of dose, toxicity and cost-effectiveness. Radiother Oncol 2017;125:107-12.
Hutchinson RC, Sundaram V, Folkert M, Lotan Y. Decision analysis model evaluating the cost of a temporary hydrogel rectal spacer before prostate radiation therapy to reduce the incidence of rectal complications. Urol Oncol 2016;34:291.e19-26.
Khairnar RR, Levy J, MM. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of hydrogel spacer in radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC). J Clin Oncol 2018;36:43-43.