Impact of Rectal Spacer on Toxicity Reduction in Men Treated With Proton Versus Photon Therapy.

Purpose: Rectal toxicity after prostate cancer (PCa) radiation therapy (RT) may be greater with protons compared with photon intensity-modulated RT, perhaps due to lateral penumbra and end-of-range uncertainty. Rectal spacers (RSs) have been shown to mitigate RT-associated acute/late rectal toxicity in men treated with photons. The relative benefit of RS in men treated with protons versus photons is unknown. We hypothesize that RS will confer greater bowel toxicity benefits in PCa treated with protons versus photons. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single institution, retrospective review of men receiving photon intensity-modulated RT or pencil-beam scanning proton RT for localized PCa. Four cohorts were compared: photon with or without RS, and proton with or without RS. Acute (<3 months), late (≥3 months), and most recent toxicity were compared among the 4 cohorts. The cumulative incidence of physician-reported grade 1 to 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (common terminology criteria for adverse events V5.0) was compared using χ2 or Fisher exact test. Patient-reported toxicity was evaluated using the International Prostate Expanded Prostate Composite Index-Clinical Practice and compared using linear mixed modeling. Results: In total, 164 patients were eligible for analysis: 38 photons without RS, 50 photons with RS, 26 protons without RS, and 50 protons with RS. The median follow-up was 17.6 months. In proton patients, acute (6.12% vs 30.77%, P = .009) and most recent (4.26% vs 26.09%, P = .01) G1-2 GI toxicity was lower with versus without RS. In photon patients, there were no significant differences in toxicity with versus without RS. No significant differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed with versus without RS in photon or proton groups. Conclusion: The rectal spacer was associated with lower G1-2 acute and most recent GI toxicity in men treated with protons; this difference was not observed in men treated with photons. While this study is limited by sample size, a relatively greater benefit of RS with proton versus photon therapy was observed.

Effect of synthetic CT on dose-derived toxicity predictors for MR-only prostate radiotherapy.

Objectives: Toxicity-driven adaptive radiotherapy (RT) is enhanced by the superior soft tissue contrast of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with conventional computed tomography (CT). However, in an MR-only RT pathway synthetic CTs (sCT) are required for dose calculation. This study evaluates 3 sCT approaches for accurate rectal toxicity prediction in prostate RT. Methods: Thirty-six patients had MR (T2-weighted acquisition optimized for anatomical delineation, and T1-Dixon) with same day standard-of-care planning CT for prostate RT. Multiple sCT were created per patient using bulk density (BD), tissue stratification (TS, from T1-Dixon) and deep-learning (DL) artificial intelligence (AI) (from T2-weighted) approaches for dose distribution calculation and creation of rectal dose volume histograms (DVH) and dose surface maps (DSM) to assess grade-2 (G2) rectal bleeding risk. Results: Maximum absolute errors using sCT for DVH-based G2 rectal bleeding risk (risk range 1.6% to 6.1%) were 0.6% (BD), 0.3% (TS) and 0.1% (DL). DSM-derived risk prediction errors followed a similar pattern. DL sCT has voxel-wise density generated from T2-weighted MR and improved accuracy for both risk-prediction methods. Conclusions: DL improves dosimetric and predicted risk calculation accuracy. Both TS and DL methods are clinically suitable for sCT generation in toxicity-guided RT, however, DL offers increased accuracy and offers efficiencies by removing the need for T1-Dixon MR. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrates novel insights regarding the effect of sCT on predictive toxicity metrics, demonstrating clear accuracy improvement with increased sCT resolution. Accuracy of toxicity calculation in MR-only RT should be assessed for all treatment sites where dose to critical structures will guide adaptive-RT strategies. Clinical trial registration number: Patient data were taken from an ethically approved (UK Health Research Authority) clinical trial run at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. Study Name: MR-simulation in Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03238170.

CT-guided hydrogel injection for brachytherapy in cervical cancer: A case report.

Rectal toxicity is a significant concern in cervical cancer radiotherapy. Despite advancements in image-guided brachytherapy (IGBT), rectal morbidity remains a challenge. Injectable hydrogel showed promise in creating a space between the vagina and rectum, reducing rectal radiation dose; however, the traditional ultrasound-guided injection revealed some problems, such as the inadequate separation of the upper edge of the cervix, which can be mitigated through adopting CT-guided injection. This case report presents the successful use of computed tomography (CT)-guided hydrogel injection to limit rectal doses and improve treatment outcomes. A forty-year-old female with stage IIIC1r cervical cancer received external-beam radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy. Due to the proximity of the tumor to the rectum, a CT-guided hydrogel injection was performed to increase the distance between the cervix and rectum. Post-injection, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated increased distances between the cervix and rectum. Subsequent MRI-based IGBT achieved high clinical target volume doses while limiting rectal doses. During the six-month follow-up, the patient reported only mild adverse effects. CT-guided hydrogel injection offers advantages over ultrasound-guided injection in cervical cancer radiotherapy. The technique allows for better puncture position adjustment, reduced reliance on specialized ultrasound expertise, and shorter puncture distances. This case report highlights the potential of hydrogel injection as a viable method to reduce rectal morbidity and improve treatment outcomes in a broader range of cervical cancer patients. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings and explore its applicability in larger cohorts.

Predictors of radiation-induced late rectal toxicity in prostate cancer treatment: a volumetric and dosimetric analysis.

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent malignancy in European men, often treated with radiotherapy (RT) for localized disease. While modern RT achieves high success rates, concerns about late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities persist. This retrospective study aims to identify predictors for late GI toxicities following definitive conventionally fractionated external beam RT (EBRT) for PCa, specifically exploring the dose to the rectal wall. Materials and methods: A cohort of 96 intermediate- to high-risk PCa patients underwent EBRT between 2008 and 2016. Rectum and rectum wall contours were delineated, and 3D dose matrices were extracted. Volumetric and dosimetric indices were computed, and statistical analyses were performed to identify predictors using the Mann-Whitney U-rank test, logistic regression, and recursive feature elimination. Results: In our cohort, 15 out of 96 patients experienced grade II late proctitis. Our analysis reveals distinct optimal predictors for rectum and rectum wall (RW) structures varying with α/ß values (3.0 and 2.3 Gy) across prescribed doses of 68 to 76 Gy. Despite variability, RW predictors demonstrate greater consistency, notably V68Gy[%] to V74Gy[%] for α/ß 3.0 Gy, and V68Gy[%] to V70Gy[%] for α/ß 2.3 Gy. The model with α/ß 2.3 Gy, featuring RW volume receiving 70 Gy (V70Gy[%]), stands out with a BIC value of 62.92, indicating its superior predictive effectiveness. Finally, focusing solely on the rectum structure, the V74Gy[%] emerges the best predictor for α/ß 3.0 Gy, with a BIC value of 66.73. Conclusion: This investigation highlights the critical role of V70Gy[%] in the rectum wall as a robust predictor for grade II late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Furthermore, our findings suggest that focusing on the rectum wall specifically, rather than the entire rectum, may offer improved accuracy in assessing proctitis development. A V70Gy (in EQD2 with α/ß 2.3 Gy) of ≤5% and if possible ≤1% for the rectal wall should be achieved to minimize the risk of late grade II proctitis.

Radiomics based predictive modeling of rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: CT and MRI comparison.

BACKGROUND: Rectal toxicity is one of the common side effects after radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients. Radiomics is a non-invasive and low-cost method for developing models of predicting radiation toxicity that does not have the limitations of previous methods. These models have been developed using individual patients' information and have reliable and acceptable performance. This study was conducted by evaluating the radiomic features of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images and using machine learning (ML) methods to predict radiation-induced rectal toxicity. METHODS: Seventy men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer, eligible for three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) participated in this prospective trial. Rectal wall CT and MR images were used to extract first-order, shape-based, and textural features. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used for feature selection. Classifiers such as Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Logistic Regression (LR), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) were used to create models based on radiomic, dosimetric, and clinical data alone or in combination. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were used to assess each model's performance. RESULTS: The best outcomes were achieved by the radiomic features of MR images in conjunction with clinical and dosimetric data, with a mean of AUC: 0.79, accuracy: 77.75%, specificity: 82.15%, and sensitivity: 67%. CONCLUSIONS: This research showed that as radiomic signatures for predicting radiation-induced rectal toxicity, MR images outperform CT images.

Same-day versus delayed simulation imaging after placement of a perirectal hydrogel spacer for prostate radiotherapy.

Introduction: Placement of a perirectal hydrogel spacer has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of rectal toxicity from prostate radiation. Practices vary regarding the timing of CT simulation after hydrogel placement, and the ideal schedule remains unknown. Methods: Thirty patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided placement of an iodinated SpaceOAR™ hydrogel prior to radiotherapy. Per evolving practice, 15 completed same-day simulation and 15 returned for simulation 1-2 weeks later. Hydrogel volume, perirectal distance, air-void volume, and rectal dosimetry per NRG GU005 were compared between CT simulation, 1st fraction Cone-Beam-CT (CBCT), and final CBCT. Results: CT simulation occurred 8.8 ± 2.4 days after placement in the delayed group, with no significant difference in the interval between simulation and 1st fraction between groups (p = 0.165). Greater observed de-creases in hydrogel volume (0.57 cc vs. 0.04 cc, p = 0.0002), and perirectal distance at both mid-gland (1.32 mm vs. 0.17 mm) and tallest point (2.40 mm vs. 0.04 mm) were seen on 1st-fraction CBCT in the same-day group (p = 0.0039; p = 0.0002). Per dosimetry recalculated on 1st fraction CBCT, five (D3 cc and D50%) versus one (D50%) rectal dose parameters were exceeded in the same-day and delayed groups, respectively, and 10 versus one parameters had a relative increase of ≥ 20%. Conclusion: Due to the evolving anatomic changes in the days following hydrogel placement, same-day simulation scanning may introduce unintended variability in rectal dosimetry at the time of prostate radiotherapy.

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.

Hyaluronic acid spacer in prostate cancer radiotherapy: dosimetric effects, spacer stability and long-term toxicity and PRO in a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Perirectal spacers may be beneficial to reduce rectal side effects from radiotherapy (RT). Here, we present the impact of a hyaluronic acid (HA) perirectal spacer on rectal dose as well as spacer stability, long-term gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity and patient-reported outcome (PRO). METHODS: In this phase II study 81 patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer received transrectal injections with HA before external beam RT (78 Gy in 39 fractions). The HA spacer was evaluated with MRI four times; before (MR0) and after HA-injection (MR1), at the middle (MR2) and at the end (MR3) of RT. GI and GU toxicity was assessed by physician for up to five years according to the RTOG scale. PROs were collected using the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Registry and Prostate cancer symptom scale questionnaires. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in rectal V70% (54.6 Gy) and V90% (70.2 Gy) between MR0 and MR1, as well as between MR0 to MR2 and MR3. From MR1 to MR2/MR3, HA thickness decreased with 28%/32% and CTV-rectum space with 19%/17% in the middle level. The cumulative late grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity at 5 years was 5% and the proportion of PRO moderate or severe overall bowel problems at 5 years follow-up was 12%. Cumulative late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity at 5 years was 12% and moderate or severe overall urinary problems at 5 years were 10%. CONCLUSION: We show that the HA spacer reduced rectal dose and long-term toxicity.

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.

Application of Hydrogel Spacer SpaceOAR Vue for Prostate Radiotherapy.

Damage in the surrounding structures, including the rectum, due to unintended exposure to radiation is a large burden to bear for patients who undergo radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The use of injectable rectal spacers to distance the anterior rectum from the prostate is a potential strategy to reduce the dose of unintended radiation to the rectum. Hydrogel spacers are gaining increasing popularity in the treatment regimen for prostate cancer. After FDA approval of SpaceOAR, specialists are receiving an increasing number of referrals for hydrogel placements. In this paper, we review hydrogel spacers, the supporting clinical data, the best practices for hydrogel placement, and the risk of adverse events.

Radiotherapy-related toxicity for localized prostate cancer: meta-analysis comparing conventional or moderately hypofractionated vs. ultrahypofractionated protocols

BackgroundTo compare toxicities in relation to standard radiation treatments [conventional fractionation RT (CRT) and moderate hypofractionated RT (MRT)] with ultrahypofractionated RT (URT) in the treatment of patients with localized PCa.MethodsA searched was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS to January 2020 for studies comparing URT to CRT and/or MRT in relation to genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. URT, MRT and CRT were defined as protocols delivering a daily dose of ≥5 Gy, 2.4–4.9 Gy, and <2.4 Gy per fractions regardless total dose, respectively.ResultsEight studies with 2929 patients with localized PCa were included in the analysis. These eight studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to acute GU toxicity (21.0% × 23.8%, RD −0.04; 95% CI −0.13, 0.06; p = 0.46; I2 = 89%) and acute GI toxicity (4.9% × 6.9%, RD −0.03; 95% CI −0.07, 0.01; p = 0.21; I2 = 79%). Six studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to late GU toxicity (3.9% × 4.7%, RD −0.01; 95% CI −0.03, 0.00; p = 0.16; I2 = 19%) and late GI toxicity (2.1% × 3.5%, RD −0.01; 95% CI −0.03, 0.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 22%).ConclusionThe present study suggests that acute GU/GI and late GU/GI toxicity are similar between URT and standard protocols. More studies with longer follow-ups directed to oncology outcomes are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.

Acute and Late Rectal Toxicity Following Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Previous randomized clinical trials have shown that moderate hypofractionation has a non-inferior or even superior efficacy to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We herein aimed to evaluate the acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma eligible to receive HRT were prospectively enrolled. All patients were submitted to rectoscopy after completion of HRT, every three months after radiotherapy for the first year and every six months for the second year. Toxicity events were classified as acute, when presenting during radiotherapy or within the first three months following its completion, and as late when appearing three months to three years post-HRT. RESULTS: Twenty prostate cancer patients participated in this study and received 22 sessions of HRT (5 sessions a week; 2.75 Gy per session) and an overall dose of 60.5 Gy. None of our patients developed acute GI toxicity; late GI toxicity (RTOG/EORTC grade 3 rectal bleeding) was observed in 1 patient only (1/20, 5%), at 6- and 12-months post-HRT. No rectal mucosa damage was observed on follow-up rectoscopy in the acute phase in any of our patients; five patients (5/20, 25%) developed late telangiectasias. Vienna retroscopy score (VRS) was 1 in 4/5 patients (80%) and 2 in 1/5 (20%). CONCLUSION: Minimal radiation-induced rectal mucosal damage was observed in our patient population, and only as a late event, further attesting to the safety of HRT in this setting.

Radiotherapy-related toxicity for localized prostate cancer: meta-analysis comparing conventional or moderately hypofractionated vs. ultrahypofractionated protocols.

BACKGROUND: To compare toxicities in relation to standard radiation treatments [conventional fractionation RT (CRT) and moderate hypofractionated RT (MRT)] with ultrahypofractionated RT (URT) in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. METHODS: A searched was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS to January 2020 for studies comparing URT to CRT and/or MRT in relation to genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. URT, MRT and CRT were defined as protocols delivering a daily dose of ≥5 Gy, 2.4-4.9 Gy, and <2.4 Gy per fractions regardless total dose, respectively. RESULTS: Eight studies with 2929 patients with localized PCa were included in the analysis. These eight studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to acute GU toxicity (21.0% × 23.8%, RD -0.04; 95% CI -0.13, 0.06; p = 0.46; I2 = 89%) and acute GI toxicity (4.9% × 6.9%, RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07, 0.01; p = 0.21; I2 = 79%). Six studies did not find any difference between URT and MRT/CRT groups in relation to late GU toxicity (3.9% × 4.7%, RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.00; p = 0.16; I2 = 19%) and late GI toxicity (2.1% × 3.5%, RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 22%). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that acute GU/GI and late GU/GI toxicity are similar between URT and standard protocols. More studies with longer follow-ups directed to oncology outcomes are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.

Neural network dose prediction for rectal spacer stratification in dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To develop a knowledge-based decision-support system capable of stratifying patients for rectal spacer (RS) insertion based on neural network predicted rectal dose, reducing the need for time- and resource-intensive radiotherapy (RT) planning. METHODS: Forty-four patients treated for prostate cancer were enrolled into a clinical trial (NCT03238170). Dose-escalated prostate RT plans were manually created for 30 patients with simulated boost volumes using a conventional treatment planning system (TPS) and used to train a hierarchically dense 3D convolutional neural network to rapidly predict RT dose distributions. The network was used to predict rectal doses for 14 unseen test patients, with associated toxicity risks calculated according to published data. All metrics obtained using the network were compared to conventionally planned values. RESULTS: The neural network stratified patients with an accuracy of 100% based on optimal rectal dose-volume histogram constraints and 78.6% based on mandatory constraints. The network predicted dose-derived grade 2 rectal bleeding risk within 95% confidence limits of -1.9% to +1.7% of conventional risk estimates (risk range 3.5%-9.9%) and late grade 2 fecal incontinence risk within -0.8% to +1.5% (risk range 2.3%-5.7%). Prediction of high-resolution 3D dose distributions took 0.7 s. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of using a neural network to provide rapid decision support for RS insertion prior to RT has been demonstrated, and the potential for time and resource savings highlighted. Directly after target and healthy tissue delineation, the network is able to (i) risk stratify most patients with a high degree of accuracy to prioritize which patients would likely derive greatest benefit from RS insertion and (ii) identify patients close to the stratification threshold who would require conventional planning.

Radiotherapy-induced toxicity in prostate cancer patients with hip prostheses.

INTRODUCTION: Acute and late toxicity was analysed for prostate cancer patients with bilateral hip prostheses, who received fixed field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The aims were (1) to establish whether toxicity rates differed from those of a control group with normal hips, (2) to develop a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) approach for patients with prostheses and (3) to compare doses to bladder and rectum for the control group, prostheses group and VMAT replans for the prostheses group. METHODS: Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The incidence of grade 2 or worse (G2+) toxicity was compared using Fisher's exact test. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) and mean doses to organs at risk (OARs) were compared using signed rank tests. RESULTS: There were 17 patients in the prostheses group and 50 in the control group. Acute and late GU toxicity was similar. G2+ late GI toxicity incidence was 31% for the prostheses group and 14% for the control group (p = 0.14). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were seen between the OAR DVHs of the prostheses group who had IMRT and the control group for a range of intermediate doses. The rectum mean dose was significantly different (p < 0.001), but no difference was seen for the bladder mean dose (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were seen in GU and GI toxicity incidence between patients with bilateral hip prostheses and a control group. The DVHs for bladder and rectum were significantly higher for patients with prostheses planned with IMRT. Replanning using a VMAT technique significantly reduced doses to the OARs, whilst maintaining good planning target volume coverage.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrogel spacer for rectal toxicity reduction in prostate external beam radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary methods of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer have reduced toxicity rates through beam modulation and image guidance, however, rectal injury has not been eliminated completely in this population. For patients at greatest risk of developing rectal toxicities, hydrogel spacers are a viable option for risk reduction. Translation of clinical trial results into routine clinical practice relies on an understanding of the economic implications. This study completed a cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrogel spacers in the Australian healthcare setting. METHOD: Simulation of possible health states following treatment was performed using a Markov model. Model outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the net monetary benefit (NMB) at three published willingness-to-pay thresholds derived from literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were provided on these results. A baseline cohort without hydrogel spacer use was compared to treat all and selective use cohorts. Cost variation scenarios were also investigated to assess the impact of hydrogel spacer cost on outcomes. RESULTS: Using hydrogel spacers in a selective cohort was more likely to be cost-effective than giving to all patients (NMB -$43 versus -$997, respectively); however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not below the $28 000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a healthcare provider perspective. These outcomes were influenced by large parameter uncertainty. Cost variation strategies are worth investigating further as a method to achieve willingness-to-pay threshold targets. CONCLUSION: The influence of parameter uncertainty currently limits the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in the Australian public health setting. However, a cost variation solution has been demonstrated to improve cost-effectiveness estimates for selected patients and should be examined further.

Clinical effects of rectal retractor application in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Background: Radiation-induced rectal toxicities remain as a major risk during prostate radiotherapy. One approach to the reduction of rectal radiation dose is to physically increase the distance between the rectal wall and prostate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate whether the application of the rectal retractor (RR) can reduce rectal dose and toxicity in prostate cancer 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Methods: Overall, 36 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomized into the 2 groups, 18 patients with RR in-place and 18 without RR. All patients underwent planning computed tomography (CT). Patients were treated with 70 Gy in 35 fractions of 3D-CRT. In the RR group, RR was used during cone-down 20 treatment fractions. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were assessed using EORTC/RTOG scoring system weekly during radiotherapy, 3, and 12 months after treatment. Device-related events were recorded according to CTCAE version 4.0. Patient characteristics, cancer differences, and dosimetric data for the RR and non-RR groups were compared using a Man-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and Fisher exact test for categorical data. The EORTC/RTOG scores for the 2 groups were compared using Fisher exact test. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A RR significantly reduced mean dose (Dmean) to the rectum as well as rectal volume receiving 50% to 95% (V50-95%) of prescribed dose. The absolute reduction of rectal Dmean was 10.3 Gy. There was no statistically significant difference in acute GI toxicity between groups during treatment or at 3 months. At 12 months, 2 patients in the RR group and 9 in the control group experienced late grade ≥ 1 GI toxicity (p=0.027). No patients in the RR group reported late grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity, whereas 3 patients in the control group experienced late grade 2 GI toxicity. In the RR group, 6 patients reported grade 1 rectal discomfort and pain according to CTCAE version 4.0. Conclusion: The application of the RR showed a significant rectum sparing effect, resulting in substantially reducing late GI toxicity.

Effectiveness of rectal displacement devices during prostate external-beam radiation therapy: A review.

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.

Temporal course of late rectal toxicity & impact of intervention in patients undergoing radiation for cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: : There is limited information available on the temporal course of late stage radiotherapy adverse effects. The present study reports on the temporal course of late toxicities after chemoradiation and brachytherapy. METHODS: : Women with cervical cancer who presented with late toxicity after (chemo) radiation were included in the study. Grade of toxicity (Clinical Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03) and type of intervention were recorded at three-monthly interval for the first year and then six monthly until 24 months. Direct cost for the management of toxicity was calculated. Univariate analysis was performed to understand the impact of various factors on persistence of toxicity. RESULTS: : Ninety two patients were included in this study. Grades I, II, III and IV toxicities were observed in 50 (54%), 33 (36%), 7 (8%) and 2 (2%) patients, respectively, at first reporting. Patients spent a median of 12 (3-27) months with toxicity. At 12 months, 48/92 (52.2%) patients had a complete resolution of toxicity, whereas 27/92 (29.3%) patients had low grade (I-II) persistent toxicity. Only 6/92 (6.5%) patients who had grade III-IV toxicity had resolution to a lower grade. Four (4.3%) patients died due to toxicity. At 24 months, 9 (10%) patients continued to have grade ≥ III toxicity. On an average, 7 (2-24) interventions were required for the clinical management of late toxicity and median direct cost incurred was ₹ 50,625 (1,125-303,750). INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: : In this study late radiation toxicity resolved within 12 months in more than half of patients. However, others are likely to have had persistent lower grade toxicity or progression to higher grade. Structured strategies are hence needed for the effective management of late toxicities.

Impact of hydrogel and hyaluronic acid rectal spacer on rectal dosimetry and toxicity in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: a multi-institutional analysis of patients' outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report on rectal dosimetry and toxicity outcomes in men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with iodine-125 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) with or without polyethylene glycol hydrogel (HS) or hyaluronic acid (HA) rectal spacer (RS) insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy consecutive men treated with LDR-BT between December 2017 and July 2019 were included in this study, including twenty-eight (40%) men who had RS insertion according to the preference of referring urologist, compared to a group of forty-two men (60%) without RS. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RS safety, dosimetric effects on organs at risk (rectum and urethra), and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities (GU) (assessed using the CTCAE v.4) between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: The median prostate-rectal separation with RS at mid prostate was 10 mm (IQR, 8-11.5 mm). The median follow-up was 23.5 months. There were no post-operative complications for RS insertion. There was significantly reduced rectal dosimetry in RS-group vs. non-RS group; the median RV100 was 0.0 cc (IQR, 0.0-0.0 cc) vs. 0.4 cc (IQR, 0.1-1.1 cc) (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean rectal D1cc and D2cc were 52.4% vs. 84.2% (p < 0.001) and 45.7% vs. 70.0% (p < 0.001) for RS and non-RS group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean urethral D20, D5, and D1. There were significantly less grade 1 acute and late GI toxicities in RS-group when compared to non-RS group (0% vs. 24%, p = 0.004 for acute GI toxicity; 4% vs. 33%, p = 0.003 for late GI toxicity). There were no reported acute or late grade 2 or above GI toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of RS in men treated with LDR-BT is safe and resulted in a significant reduction in rectal dosimetry. The reduction in rectal dosimetry with RS insertion translates into significantly reduced acute and late GI toxicities.