Feasibility of rectal spacer hydrogel in proton therapy for large prostate glands (>80 cc)

OncoLink Team
Last Reviewed: May 15, 2017

Reporter: Eric Ojerholm, MD

Study presenting author: Marcio Fagundes, MD

Presenting author affiliation: Miami Cancer Institute, Miamia, FL, USA

Session: Genitourinary, oral abstract #83

 

Background:

  • Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, and it is often treated with radiotherapy
  • This treatment carries a modest risk of acute and late rectal toxicity1,2
  • One way to reduce rectal toxicity is a hydrogel spacer that is injected into the patient’s pelvis and creates a physical space between the rectum and prostate. This reduces the radiation dose to the rectum.3
  • In a phase III trial, use of a hydrogel spacer decreased the 3-year incidence of grade 1 (9.2% versus 2%) and grade ≥ 2 (5.7% versus 0%) rectal toxicity3
  • That trial only included patients with prostate glands <80 cubic centimeters (cc). It is unclear whether the spacer can be safely used for patients with larger prostate glands

 

Purpose:

  • To analyze the feasibility of hydrogel spacer use in patients with prostate glands >80 cc treated with proton therapy

 

Materials/Methods:

  • The authors retrospectively analyzed 26 patients with prostate glands >80 cubic centimeters treated with proton therapy at the Provision Center for Proton Therapy in Knoxville, TN between 4/2015 and 9/2016
  • Important demographic factors included:
    • 14 patients with glands from 80-100 cc (mean 86.6 cc)
    • 12 patients with glands >100 cc (mean 130.9 cc)
    • Low/intermediate risk prostate cancer in 21 patients, and high risk prostate cancer in 5 patients
    • 30% of patients on pre-radiotherapy alpha blockers to reduce prostate size
    • Important treatment factors included:
      • Dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions for 23 patients, and dose of 62 Gy in 20 fractions for 3 patients
      • Setup uncertainty margins of 6 mm around (except 4 mm posteriorly)
      • Majority of patients treated with opposed lateral beams

 

Results:

  • The average midgland prostate-rectum separation achieved by the hydrogel spacer was 1.29 cm in the 80-100 cc gland group and 1.09 cm in the >100 cc gland group
  • Amount of rectum getting at least 90% of the prescription dose was an average of 1.2% for the 80-100 cc gland group and an average of 1.1% for the >100 cc gland group
  • Amount of rectum getting at least 77% of the prescription dose was an average of 3.6% for the 80-100 cc gland group and an average of 3.8% for the >100 cc gland group
  • Amount of rectum getting at least 64% of the prescription dose was an average of 7.2% for the 80-100 cc gland group and an average of 7.6% for the >100 cc gland group
  • Acute toxicities included:
    • Grade 1 genitourinary (92%), grade 2 genitourinary (4%)
    • Grade 1 gastrointenstinal (38%), including diarrhea, mild rectal pain, and a bleed
    • Late toxicities included: grade 1 genitourinary (35%)
    • There were no late grade 2 genitourinary or gastrointestinal side effects

 

Study author’s conclusions:

  • Hydrogel was successfully placed in all patients attempted with prostate >80 cc
  • Hydrogel achieved good recto-prostate separation and very low doses to the rectum

 

Reporter’s take:

  • This study is important because the pivotal phase III trial3 of rectal spacers did not included men with prostate glands >80 cc
  • These results suggest that the conclusions of the phase III trial can be extended to this new population
  • These results will help doctors and patients when trying to decide whether to consider a hydrogel spacer
  • One caveat is that the authors of this study are experts in performing hydrogel spacer placement, and they teach a course on this topic. Therefore, results for large prostate glands may be more challenging for providers with less experience

References

  1. Chen RC, Basak R, Meyer AM, et al: Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA 317:1141-1150, 2017
  2. Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ, et al: Association Between Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Patient-Reported Outcomes After 3 Years. JAMA 317:1126-1140, 2017
  3. Hamstra DA, Mariados N, Sylvester J, et al. Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 97(5):976-985, 2017

Keywords

Click on any of these terms for more related articles

Blogs

Why tenacity matters in the face of cancer
by Marlys Johnson
October 22, 2018

Proton Therapy for Brain Tumors
by OncoLink Team
September 19, 2018

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
X
Y
Z
#
 
A
B
C
E
G
H
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
 
 
 
 
Stay informed with the latest information from OncoLink!   Subscribe to OncoLink eNews
View our newsletter archives