Hyaluronic Acid Spacer for Hypofractionated Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer has been associated with greater acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxic effects compared with conventionally fractionated RT. Objective: To evaluate whether a hyaluronic acid rectal spacer could (1) improve rectal dosimetry and (2) affect acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects for hypofractionated RT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 2020 to June 2021 among 12 centers within the US, Australia, and Spain, with a 6-month follow-up. Adult patients with biopsy-proven, T1 to T2 prostate cancer with a Gleason score 7 or less and prostate-specific antigen level of 20 ng/mL or less (to convert to µg/L, multiply by 1) were blinded to the treatment arms. Of the 260 consented patients, 201 patients (77.3%) were randomized (2:1) to the presence or absence of the spacer. Patients were stratified by intended 4-month androgen deprivation therapy use and erectile quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the primary outcome, we hypothesized that more than 70% of patients in the spacer group would achieve a 25% or greater reduction in the rectal volume receiving 54 Gy (V54). For the secondary outcome, we hypothesized that the spacer group would have noninferior acute (within 3 months) grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects compared with the control group, with a margin of 10%. Results: Of the 201 randomized patients, 8 (4.0%) were Asian, 26 (12.9%) Black, 42 (20.9%) Hispanic or Latino, and 153 (76.1%) White; the mean (SD) age for the spacer group was 68.6 (7.2) years and 68.4 (7.3) years for the control group. For the primary outcome, 131 of 133 (98.5%; 95% CI, 94.7%-99.8%) patients in the spacer group experienced a 25% or greater reduction in rectum V54, which was greater than the minimally acceptable 70% (P < .001). The mean (SD) reduction was 85.0% (20.9%). For the secondary outcome, 4 of 136 patients (2.9%) in the spacer group and 9 of 65 patients (13.8%) in the control group experienced acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects (difference, -10.9%; 95% 1-sided upper confidence limit, -3.5; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The trial results suggest that rectal spacing with hyaluronic acid improved rectal dosimetry and reduced acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects. Rectal spacing should potentially be considered for minimizing the risk of acute grade 2 or higher toxic effects for hypofractionated RT. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04189913.

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

PURPOSE: Previously a phase III trial of a hydrogel rectal spacer during prostate radiation therapy found decreased toxicity and a clinically significant improvement in bowel quality of life (QOL) at 3 years by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index. We performed a secondary analysis to identify men less likely to benefit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical and dosimetric data for the 222 patients enrolled on the SpaceOAR phase III trial were analyzed. The volume of rectum treated to 70 Gy (V70) and the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) rectal dose goals were used as surrogates for clinical benefit and plan quality. Mean bowel QOL was assessed at 15 and 36 months posttreatment and the likelihood of 1× (5 points) or 2× (10 points) minimally important difference changes were assessed. RESULTS: Rectal V70 was correlated with physician scored toxicity (P = .033) and was used as a surrogate for plan quality. There was no correlation between prostate volume and rectal V70 (r = 0.077). Rectal V70 pre- and post-hydrogel was 13% and 3% for the smallest prostates (<40 mL) and 12% and 2% for the largest (>80 mL). The relative reduction in rectal V70 of 78% did not vary by prespacer V70, but the absolute reduction was greater for a higher V70. All spacer plans met the 5 QUANTEC rectal dose constraints, although 92% of control plans met all constraints. At 3 years, those not meeting all QUANTEC goals had a 15.0-point (standard deviation 15.1) decline, control patients meeting QUANTEC goals had a 4.0-point (9.5) decline, and spacer had >0.5 (7.6; P < .01). Previous surgery was not correlated with QOL (P = .8). Across prognostic groups, including age, body mass index, previous surgery, target volume, or quality of radiation plans, there was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the relative benefit of spacer in decreasing the risk of 1× or 2× the minimally important difference declines. CONCLUSIONS: There was little heterogeneity in the likelihood of spacer reducing the risk of declines in bowel QOL across clinical and dosimetric variables. Even for the >95% of plans meeting QUANTEC rectal criteria, hydrogel spacer provided potentially meaningful benefits.

Recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy with (131)Cs: a consensus report from the Cesium Advisory Group.

PURPOSE: Published clinical information on the safety and efficacy of (131)Cs implants is limited. We provide consensus recommendations for (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy based on experience to date. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Cesium Advisory Group (CAG) consists of experienced (131)Cs users. Recommendations are based on three clinical trials, one of which has completed accrual and has been published in the peer reviewed literature, and combined CAG experience of more than 1200 (131)Cs implants. RESULTS: We recommend using 1.059cGyh(-1)U(-1) as the dose rate constant for the IsoRay source. The prescription for monotherapy implants is 115Gy and when combined with 45-50Gy external beam it is 85Gy. Suggested individual source strength ranges from 1.6 to 2.2U. The release criterion for (131)Cs implants is 6mRh(-1) at 1m. (131)Cs brachytherapy should be performed differently from (125)I and (103)Pd brachytherapy: source placement is further from the urethra and rectum; the prostate V(150) should be < or =45%; sufficient margins may be obtained while limiting source placement to the capsule or close to the capsule. The increased dose rate may cause degradation of postimplant quantifiers due to edema. However, large variability in the magnitude and rate of resolution of edema make determination of the most representative postoperative imaging time impossible. The CAG recommends postimplant imaging on the day of the implant. Recommended postimplant evaluation goals include prostate D(90) greater than the prescription dose; maintaining D(u)(,30)<140% of the prescription dose and keeping V(r)(,100)<0.5cm(3). CONCLUSION: It was the consensus of the CAG that optimal (131)Cs implants should be performed differently from those performed with (125)I or (103)Pd. Guidelines have been established to allow for safe and effective delivery of (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy.

Sexual quality of life following prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rectal/prostate spacer: Secondary analysis of a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the results of a phase 3 trial evaluating a prostate/rectal hydrogel spacer during prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy, which resulted in decreased rectal dose and toxicity and less decline in bowel quality of life (QOL). A secondary analysis was performed to correlate penile bulb dose and sexual QOL. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sexual QOL was measured with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) by mean scores, the proportion of patients with a minimal clinically important difference (MID), and analyses of the different items composing the sexual domain. RESULTS: A total of 222 men enrolled with median follow-up of 37 months. Hydrogel reduced penile bulb mean dose, maximum dose, and percentage of penile bulb receiving 10 to 30 Gy (all P < .05) with mean dose indirectly correlated with erections sufficient for intercourse at 15 months (P = .03). Baseline EPIC was low (53 [standard deviation ± 24]) with no difference between arms (P > .1). A total of 41% (88/222) of men had adequate baseline sexual QOL (EPIC >60 (mean, 77 [± 8.3]). This subgroup at 3 years had better sexual function (P = .03) with a spacer with a smaller difference in sexual bother (P = .1), which resulted in a higher EPIC summary on the spacer arm (58 [±24.1] vs control 45 [± 24.4]) meeting threshold for MID without statistical significance (P = .07). There were statistically nonsignificant differences favoring spacer for the proportion of men with MID and 2× MID declines in sexual QOL with 53% vs 75% having an 11-point decline (P = .064) and 41% vs 60% with a 22-point decline (P = .11). At 3 years, more men potent at baseline and treated with spacer had "erections sufficient for intercourse" (control 37.5% vs spacer 66.7%, P = .046) as well as statistically higher scores on 7 of 13 items in the sexual domain (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a hydrogel spacer decreased dose to the penile bulb, which was associated with improved erectile function compared with the control group based on patient-reported sexual QOL.

Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.

Hydrogel Spacer Application Technique, Patient Tolerance and Impact on Prostate Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: Results from a Prospective, Multicenter, Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the safety, tolerability and impact on therapy of an absorbable hydrogel perirectal spacer (SpaceOAR® system) designed to reduce the rectal radiation dose during prostate cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: A multicenter, pivotal, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 222 men with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer treated to 79.2 Gy with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy in 44 fractions. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive fiducial markers and perirectal spacer injection (spacer group) or fiducial markers alone (control group). Spacer placement, tolerability, perirectal space creation, impact on rectal dose and impact on quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: Most spacer procedures were conducted with the patient under general or local anesthesia. Procedures were rated easy or very easy in 98.7% of cases with a 99.3% success rate. Mild transient rectal events were noted in 10% of patients in the spacer group (eg pain, discomfort). Mean perirectal space was 12.6 mm after implant and 10.9 mm at 12.4 weeks with absorption at 12 months. A 25% or greater reduction in rectal V70 dose was produced in 97.3% of patients in the spacer group. The spacer group experienced a significant reduction in late rectal toxicity severity (p=0.044) as well as lower rates of decrease in bowel quality of life at 6, 12 and 15 months compared to the control group. There were no unanticipated adverse spacer effects or spacer related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrogel spacer application was straightforward and repeatable, resulting in consistent perirectal space creation and rectal dose reduction. Spacer application has the potential to improve prostate radiotherapy outcomes and enable advanced radiotherapy protocols.

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.

PURPOSE: Perirectal spacing, whereby biomaterials are placed between the prostate and rectum, shows promise in reducing rectal dose during prostate cancer radiation therapy. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial was performed to assess outcomes following absorbable spacer (SpaceOAR system) implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Overall, 222 patients with clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for treatment planning, followed with fiducial marker placement, and were randomized to receive spacer injection or no injection (control). Patients received postprocedure CT and MRI planning scans and underwent image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions). Spacer safety and impact on rectal irradiation, toxicity, and quality of life were assessed throughout 15 months. RESULTS: Spacer application was rated as "easy" or "very easy" 98.7% of the time, with a 99% hydrogel placement success rate. Perirectal spaces were 12.6 ± 3.9 mm and 1.6 ± 2.0 mm in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events, rectal perforations, serious bleeding, or infections within either group. Pre-to postspacer plans had a significant reduction in mean rectal V70 (12.4% to 3.3%, P<.0001). Overall acute rectal adverse event rates were similar between groups, with fewer spacer patients experiencing rectal pain (P=.02). A significant reduction in late (3-15 months) rectal toxicity severity in the spacer group was observed (P=.04), with a 2.0% and 7.0% late rectal toxicity incidence in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There was no late rectal toxicity greater than grade 1 in the spacer group. At 15 months 11.6% and 21.4% of spacer and control patients, respectively, experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life. MRI scans at 12 months verified spacer absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Spacer application was well tolerated. Increased perirectal space reduced rectal irradiation, reduced rectal toxicity severity, and decreased rates of patients experiencing declines in bowel quality of life. The spacer appears to be an effective tool, potentially enabling advanced prostate RT protocols.

Issues in using databases of pre-recorded physiological signals to test medical devices.

Bench testing with databases of pre-recorded physiological signals is a common step in the verification and validation of medical devices. For example, in the case of an electrocardiographic (ECG) monitor to be tested, the physiological signals are ECG tracings that have previously been recorded from patients using other ECG monitors. Human overreaders then annotate the tracings to determine the occurrence of significant clinical events such as ventricular tachycardia. These annotations can be used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the ECG monitor to be tested. This article aims to highlight some issues associated with such bench testing, such as the way the pre-recorded signals are presented to the medical device to be tested, the adequacy of single channel versus dual channel versus multi-channel testing in the bench testing, and the need for the human overreaders and the medical device to use the same set of rules for determining the occurrence of a clinical event. These issues are also applicable to other monitors such as the apnea monitor. Some suggestions for addressing the issues are presented.