Rectum-spacer related acute toxicity - endoscopy results of 403 prostate cancer patients after implantation of gel or balloon spacers.
External beam radiation therapy
Prostate
Rectum toxicity
Spacer
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2019
15 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
10
09
2018
accepted:
04
03
2019
entrez:
17
3
2019
pubmed:
17
3
2019
medline:
29
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rectal spacers are used to limit dose to the anterior rectal wall in high dose external beam radiation therapy of the prostate and have been shown to reduce radiation induced toxicity. Here we report the complication rate and toxicity of the implantation procedure in a large cohort of patients who have either received a gel- or balloon-type spacer. In total, 403 patients received rectal spacing, 264 with balloon, 139 with gel. Allocation was non-randomized. Two hundred seventy-six patients were treated with normofractionated regimen, the remaining 125 patients in moderate hypofractionation. Spacer related acute and late rectal toxicity was prospectively assessed by endoscopy using a mucosa scoring system (Vienna Rectoscopy Score) as well as CTCAE V.4. For the balloon subgroup, position and rotation of balloon spacers were additionally correlated to incidence and grade of rectal reactions in a post-hoc analysis of post-implant planning MRIs. Overall rectal toxicity was very low with average VRS scores of 0.06 at the day after implantation, 0.10 at the end of RT, 0.31 at 6 months and 0.42 at 12 months follow up. Acute Grade 3 toxicity (rectum perforation and urethral damage) directly related to the implantation procedure occurred in 1.49% (n = 6) and was seen exclusively in patients who had received the spacer balloon. Analysis of post implant MR imaging did not identify abnormal or mal-rotated positions of this spacer to be a predictive factors for the occurrence of spacer related G3 toxicities. Spacer technology is an effective means to minimize dose to the anterior rectal wall. However, the benefits in terms of dose sparing need to be weighed against the low, but possible risks of complications such as rectum perforation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rectal spacers are used to limit dose to the anterior rectal wall in high dose external beam radiation therapy of the prostate and have been shown to reduce radiation induced toxicity. Here we report the complication rate and toxicity of the implantation procedure in a large cohort of patients who have either received a gel- or balloon-type spacer.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 403 patients received rectal spacing, 264 with balloon, 139 with gel. Allocation was non-randomized. Two hundred seventy-six patients were treated with normofractionated regimen, the remaining 125 patients in moderate hypofractionation. Spacer related acute and late rectal toxicity was prospectively assessed by endoscopy using a mucosa scoring system (Vienna Rectoscopy Score) as well as CTCAE V.4. For the balloon subgroup, position and rotation of balloon spacers were additionally correlated to incidence and grade of rectal reactions in a post-hoc analysis of post-implant planning MRIs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall rectal toxicity was very low with average VRS scores of 0.06 at the day after implantation, 0.10 at the end of RT, 0.31 at 6 months and 0.42 at 12 months follow up. Acute Grade 3 toxicity (rectum perforation and urethral damage) directly related to the implantation procedure occurred in 1.49% (n = 6) and was seen exclusively in patients who had received the spacer balloon. Analysis of post implant MR imaging did not identify abnormal or mal-rotated positions of this spacer to be a predictive factors for the occurrence of spacer related G3 toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Spacer technology is an effective means to minimize dose to the anterior rectal wall. However, the benefits in terms of dose sparing need to be weighed against the low, but possible risks of complications such as rectum perforation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30876433
doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1248-6
pii: 10.1186/s13014-019-1248-6
pmc: PMC6419822
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hydrogels
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Références
J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):1990-6
pubmed: 16648499
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):78-83
pubmed: 17189064
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):67-74
pubmed: 17765406
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jun 1;71(2):330-7
pubmed: 18164858
Brachytherapy. 2009 Apr-Jun;8(2):210-217
pubmed: 19213607
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Aug 1;74(5):1405-18
pubmed: 19616743
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 15;76(4):1251-8
pubmed: 19939577
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S10-9
pubmed: 20171502
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Sep;100(3):436-41
pubmed: 21963289
Radiother Oncol. 2013 Feb;106(2):210-4
pubmed: 23484879
Urologe A. 2013 Dec;52(12):1690-7
pubmed: 23942724
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Oct 1;90(2):278-88
pubmed: 25304788
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):971-977
pubmed: 26054865
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Aug;116(2):221-5
pubmed: 26232129
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2325-32
pubmed: 27044935
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1047-1060
pubmed: 27339115
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 May - Jun;7(3):195-202
pubmed: 28089528
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Apr 1;97(5):976-985
pubmed: 28209443
Int Braz J Urol. 2017 Nov-Dec;43(6):1033-1042
pubmed: 28338306
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Oct;125(1):107-112
pubmed: 28823404
Can J Urol. 2018 Apr;25(2):9288-9293
pubmed: 29680009
BMC Cancer. 2018 May 16;18(1):566
pubmed: 29769060