Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Pivotal Trial of Biodegradable Balloon Rectal Spacer for Prostate Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Rectal spacers have been shown to reduce rectal side effects in patients receiving prostate radiation. However, concerns remain regarding precise and reproducible gel injection. We evaluated efficacy and safety of a novel rectoprostatic spacer balloon which allows potential for controlled, adaptable deployment. This study tested co-primary hypotheses: 1) Balloon spacer would result in ≥ 25% reduction of rectal V70 in > 75% of subjects, and 2) Implantation procedure-related and rectal ≥ Grade 1 adverse events within 6 months (duration ≥ 2 days, CTCAE 4.0) would be non-inferior in balloon vs control subjects. MATERIALS/METHODS: 222 subjects were enrolled at 16 centers. All patients had T1-T3 prostate cancer without MRI evidence of posterior extraprostatic invasion. Randomization was 2:1 (balloon: control) and subject-blinded. Patients underwent transperineal TRUS-guided fiducial placement +/- balloon, followed by IMRT (81 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions or biologically equivalent hypofractionated dose). For efficacy comparisons, plans were generated by a central core lab on pre- and post-implant CT scans. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was met, with 97.9% of balloon subjects (139/142) having rectal V70 reduction >25% (p<0.001). Mean V70 was 7.0 % pre- vs 1.1% post- implant. The primary safety endpoint was met with balloon subjects experiencing fewer ≥ Grade 1 events, 18% vs 23% (p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). On pre-defined secondary endpoint of ≥ Grade 2 events, rates trended lower in balloon subjects (4.3% vs 6.5%, p=0.527). Mean perirectal spacing was 19 ±3.7mm and maintained through radiation treatment (18 ±3.9mm). Balloon resorption was observed on 6-month CT in 98.5% (133/135) of subjects. The EPIC QOL instrument was collected throughout study, and did not differ statistically between the study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Biodegradable rectal spacer balloon was effective in significantly reducing dose to rectum, and associated with decreased cumulative rectal plus implantation-related adverse events. Balloon resorption was consistently observed by 6 months.

Use of rectal balloon spacer in patients with localized prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of the balloon spacer when used to reduce the radiation dose delivered to the rectum in prostate cancer patients undergoing external beam radiotherapy. Method: A single center retrospective analysis including 75 PC patients with localized T1-T3a disease who received balloon spacer followed by EBRT. Pre- and post-implantation computed tomography (CT) scans were utilized for treatment planning for standard EBRT (78-81 Gy in 1.8-2 Gy fractions). Rectal dosimetry was assessed using DVHs, and toxicities were graded with CTCAE v.4. Results: A median (IQR) prostate-rectum separation resulted in 1.6 cm (1.4-2.0) post balloon spacer implantation. Overall, 90.6 % (68/75) of patients had a clinically significant 25 % relative reduction in the rectal with a median relative reduction of 91.8 % (71.2-98.6 %) at rV70. Three (4.0 %) patients reported mild procedural adverse events, anal discomfort and dysuria. Within 90 days post-implantation, five patients (6.67 %) and 1 patient (1.33 %) reported grade 1 and grade 2 rectal toxicities (anal pain, constipation, diarrhea and hemorrhoids). Genitourinary (GU) grade 1 toxicity was reported in 37 patients (49.33 %), with only one patient (1.33 %) experiencing grade 2 GU toxicity. No grade ≥ 3 toxicity was reported. Conclusion: Balloon spacer implantation effectively increased prostate-rectum separation and associated with dosimetric gains EBRT for PC stage T1-T3a. Further controlled studies are required to ascertain whether this spacer allows for radiotherapy dose escalation and minimizes gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity.

Multicenter, dual fractionation scheme, single core lab comparison of rectal volume dose reduction following injection of two biodegradable perirectal spacers.

PURPOSE: A multicenter, double-arm, central core lab, retrospective study was performed to compare the rectal dosimetry of patients implanted with two injectable, biodegradable perirectal spacers, in conventional fractionation (CF), as well as ultrahypofractionation (UH) treatment plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled into the study in five centers: two centers in Europe, which implanted a biodegradable balloon spacer in a total of 24 subjects and three centers in the US, which implanted the SpaceOAR in 35 subjects. Anonymized CTs (pre and post-implantation) were reviewed by the central core lab. For VMAT CF plans rectal V50, V60, V70, and V80 were calculated. For UH plans, a corresponding rectal V22.6, V27.1, V31.37, and V36.25 were established representing 62.5%, 75%, 87.5%, and 100% of the 36.25 Gy prescribed dose. RESULTS: For CF VMAT, a comparison between the balloon spacer and the SpaceOAR revealed a significant difference of 33.4% decrease in mean rectal V50 (71.9% vs. 38.5%, p < 0.001), 27.7% in mean rectal V60 (79.6% vs. 51.9%, p < 0.001), 17.1% difference in mean rectal V70 (84.1% vs. 67.0%, p = 0.001), and a significant difference of 3.0% (p = 0.019) in mean rectal V80 (87.2% vs. 84.2%). With UH analysis, the mean rectal dose reduction for the balloon spacer compared to the SpaceOAR was 79.2% and 53.3% for V27.1 (p < 0.001), 84.1% and 68.1% for V31.71 (p = 0.001), and 89.7% and 84.8% for V36.25 (p = 0.012), respectively. CONCLUSION: Rectal dosimetry is more favorable for treatment with the balloon spacer compared with SpaceOAR. Further research, particularly in the context of a prospective randomized clinical trial design, is needed to assess the acute and late toxicity experience as well as physician satisfaction with achieving symmetrical implantation, and ease of use in light of increasing clinical use.

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.

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 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.