Frank Wolf1, Christoph Gaisberger2, Ingrid Ziegler2, Elisabeth Krenn3, Philipp Scherer2, Stephan Hruby4, Tobias Schätz4, Rosemarie Forstner5, Josef Holzinger6, Andrea Vaszi2, Gerhard Kametriser2, Philipp Steininger7, Heinz Deutschmann8, Felix Sedlmayer8. 1. Dpt. of Radiation Oncology, St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. Electronic address: f.wolf@salk.at. 2. Dpt. of Radiation Oncology, St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. 3. Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. 4. Dpt. of Urology, St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. 5. Dpt. of Radiology, St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. 6. Dept. of Surgery, St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. 7. Institute for Research and Development on Advanced Radiation Technologies (radART), St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria. 8. Dpt. of Radiation Oncology, St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria; Institute for Research and Development on Advanced Radiation Technologies (radART), St. Johanns-Spital, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In external beam radiation (EBRT) of the prostate, the rectum is the dose-limiting organ at risk, and sparing of the anterior rectal wall is a prerequisite for safe delivery of doses beyond 70 Gy. Spatial sparing of the rectum can be achieved by introducing a spacer material into the retroprostatic space, thus separating the anterior rectal wall from the PTV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two spacer technologies, Spacer OAR, a polyethylene glycol gel and ProSpace, a saline inflated balloon, were compared in terms of spacer volume, stability, and dose reduction to the anterior rectum wall in 78 patients. RESULTS: Both spacer systems significantly reduced the rectum surface encompassed by the 95% isodose (gel: -35%, p<0.01; balloon -63.4%, p<0.001) compared to a control group. The balloon spacer was superior in reducing rectum dose (-27.7%, p=0.034), but exhibited an average volume loss of >50% during the full course of treatment of 37-40 fractions, while the volume of gel spacers remained fairly constant. CONCLUSIONS: In choosing between the two spacer technologies, the advantageous dose reduction of the balloon needs to be weighed up against the better volume consistency of the gel spacer with respect to the duration of hypofractionated vs normofractionated regimens.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In external beam radiation (EBRT) of the prostate, the rectum is the dose-limiting organ at risk, and sparing of the anterior rectal wall is a prerequisite for safe delivery of doses beyond 70 Gy. Spatial sparing of the rectum can be achieved by introducing a spacer material into the retroprostatic space, thus separating the anterior rectal wall from the PTV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two spacer technologies, Spacer OAR, a polyethylene glycol gel and ProSpace, a saline inflated balloon, were compared in terms of spacer volume, stability, and dose reduction to the anterior rectum wall in 78 patients. RESULTS: Both spacer systems significantly reduced the rectum surface encompassed by the 95% isodose (gel: -35%, p<0.01; balloon -63.4%, p<0.001) compared to a control group. The balloon spacer was superior in reducing rectum dose (-27.7%, p=0.034), but exhibited an average volume loss of >50% during the full course of treatment of 37-40 fractions, while the volume of gel spacers remained fairly constant. CONCLUSIONS: In choosing between the two spacer technologies, the advantageous dose reduction of the balloon needs to be weighed up against the better volume consistency of the gel spacer with respect to the duration of hypofractionated vs normofractionated regimens.
Authors: Sónia Barros; Joana Roseira; Paulo Caldeira; Ana Margarida Vaz; Horácio Guerreiro; Oscar Codon Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Randall J Brenneman; S Murty Goddu; Neal Andruska; Amit Roy; Walter R Bosch; Benjamin Fischer-Valuck; Jason A Efstathiou; Hiram A Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Brian C Baumann Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-22
Authors: Ben G L Vanneste; Y van Wijk; L C Lutgens; E J Van Limbergen; E N van Lin; K van de Beek; P Lambin; A L Hoffmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Andreas Schörghofer; Michael Groher; Josef Karner; Andrea Kopp; Gerhard Kametriser; Thomas Kunit; Josef Holzinger; Felix Sedlmayer; Frank Wolf Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Igor Latorzeff; Eric Bruguière; Emilie Bogart; Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Eric Lartigau; Delphine Marre; David Pasquier Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 6.244