BACKGROUND: Hydrogel spacer is an innovative method to protect the rectal wall during prostate cancer radiotherapy. Clinical effects are not well known. METHODS: Patients have been surveyed before, at the last day, and 2-3 months after radiotherapy using a validated questionnaire (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite). Median dose to the prostate in the spacer subgroup (SP) was 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. The results were independently compared with two matched-pair subgroups (treated conventionally without spacer): 3D conformal 70.2 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) 76 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. There were 28 patients in each of the three groups. RESULTS: Baseline mean bowel bother scores were 96 points in all subgroups. Similar mean changes (SP 16, 3DCRT 14, IMRT 17 points) were observed at the end of radiotherapy. The smallest difference resulted in the spacer subgroup 2-3 months after radiotherapy (SP 2, 3DCRT 8, IMRT 6 points). Bowel bother scores were only significantly different in comparison to baseline levels in the spacer subgroup. The percentage of patients reporting moderate/big bother with specific symptoms did not increase for any item (urgency, frequency, diarrhoea, incontinence, bloody stools, pain). CONCLUSION: Moderate bowel quality-of-life changes can be expected during radiotherapy irrespective of spacer application or total dose. Advantages with a spacer can be expected a few weeks after treatment.
BACKGROUND: Hydrogel spacer is an innovative method to protect the rectal wall during prostate cancer radiotherapy. Clinical effects are not well known. METHODS:Patients have been surveyed before, at the last day, and 2-3 months after radiotherapy using a validated questionnaire (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite). Median dose to the prostate in the spacer subgroup (SP) was 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. The results were independently compared with two matched-pair subgroups (treated conventionally without spacer): 3D conformal 70.2 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) 76 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. There were 28 patients in each of the three groups. RESULTS: Baseline mean bowel bother scores were 96 points in all subgroups. Similar mean changes (SP 16, 3DCRT 14, IMRT 17 points) were observed at the end of radiotherapy. The smallest difference resulted in the spacer subgroup 2-3 months after radiotherapy (SP 2, 3DCRT 8, IMRT 6 points). Bowel bother scores were only significantly different in comparison to baseline levels in the spacer subgroup. The percentage of patients reporting moderate/big bother with specific symptoms did not increase for any item (urgency, frequency, diarrhoea, incontinence, bloody stools, pain). CONCLUSION: Moderate bowel quality-of-life changes can be expected during radiotherapy irrespective of spacer application or total dose. Advantages with a spacer can be expected a few weeks after treatment.
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Georges Sumo; Margaret Bidmead; David Bloomfield; Catharine Clark; Annie Gao; Shama Hassan; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Vincent Khoo; Peter Kirkbride; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Martin Russell; Christopher Scrase; Chris South; John Staffurth; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Nuria Escobar Corral; Mariana Caffaro; Marc D Piroth; Richard Holy; Victoria Djukic; Gundula Otto; Felix Schoth; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Frank Peinemann; Ulrich Grouven; Carmen Bartel; Stefan Sauerland; Holger Borchers; Michael Pinkawa; Axel Heidenreich; Stefan Lange Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Gregor Goldner; Samir Sljivic; Renee Oismueller; Johanna Salinger; Michael Mittermüller; Tanja Langsenlehner; Walter Harder; Gerhard Kametriser; Helmut Eiter; Elisabeth Nechvile Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Gencay Hatiboglu; Michael Pinkawa; Jean-Paul Vallée; Boris Hadaschik; Markus Hohenfellner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wim L J van Putten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Geert J L H van Leenders; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Louis Potters; Deepak Khuntia; Jay P Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Alwyn M Reuther; Thomas P Carlson; Eric A Klein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B A Jereczek-Fossa; C Pobbiati; L Santoro; C Fodor; P Fanti; S Vigorito; G Baroni; D Zerini; O De Cobelli; R Orecchia Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-08-17 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M E Schutzer; P F Orio; M C Biagioli; D A Asher; H Lomas; D Moghanaki Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Carolin Schubert; Nuria Escobar-Corral; Richard Holy; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.621