Mahdieh Afkhami Ardekani1, Hamed Ghaffari2, Mahmoud Navaser3, Seyed Hamid Zoljalali Moghaddam3, Soheila Refahi4. 1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Para-Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar-Abbas, Iran. 2. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. hamedghaffari@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether rectal displacement devices (RDDs) have a prostate-stabilizing effect during prostate external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: A systematic literature search using the PubMed database from January 1, 2000 to December 30th, 2019 was conducted. The effect of RDDs on inter- and intra-fractional prostate displacements was extracted. RESULTS: From 356 articles identified via the PubMed database and hand search, 21 articles were included in the systematic review. There was no randomized study. Twelve studies evaluated the role of the endorectal balloon (ERB) in managing prostate motion. Four studies reported the effect of hydrogel spacer on prostate motion. Four studies examined the effect of the rectal retractor (RR) on intra-fractional prostate motion, and only one study assessed the impact of ProSpare (Nottinghamshire, UK) in reducing prostate motion. CONCLUSION: Using an ERB significantly reduces intra-fractional prostate motion. This prostate-stabilizing effect of the ERB can translate into reduced planning target volume (PTV) margins and additional rectal dose sparing. Even with an ERB in place, inter-fractional prostate displacements are seen. As a consequence, ERB application does not obviate daily verification; however, this is not a crucial topic because pretreatment imaging is always done nowadays. As compared with ERB, the hydrogel spacer significantly reduces rectal dose and toxicity without influencing prostate immobilization. The RR can increase prostate and rectal inter- and intra-fractional stability without a clear influence on the reduction of rectal toxicity. Finally, it is unclear whether ProSpare is a suitable device reducing prostate motion. Further study will be required to clarify whether the prostate-stabilizing effects of the ERB and RR can result in a safe reduction of PTV margins and further sparing of organs at risks, especially the rectum.
PURPOSE: To determine whether rectal displacement devices (RDDs) have a prostate-stabilizing effect during prostate external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: A systematic literature search using the PubMed database from January 1, 2000 to December 30th, 2019 was conducted. The effect of RDDs on inter- and intra-fractional prostate displacements was extracted. RESULTS: From 356 articles identified via the PubMed database and hand search, 21 articles were included in the systematic review. There was no randomized study. Twelve studies evaluated the role of the endorectal balloon (ERB) in managing prostate motion. Four studies reported the effect of hydrogel spacer on prostate motion. Four studies examined the effect of the rectal retractor (RR) on intra-fractional prostate motion, and only one study assessed the impact of ProSpare (Nottinghamshire, UK) in reducing prostate motion. CONCLUSION: Using an ERB significantly reduces intra-fractional prostate motion. This prostate-stabilizing effect of the ERB can translate into reduced planning target volume (PTV) margins and additional rectal dose sparing. Even with an ERB in place, inter-fractional prostate displacements are seen. As a consequence, ERB application does not obviate daily verification; however, this is not a crucial topic because pretreatment imaging is always done nowadays. As compared with ERB, the hydrogel spacer significantly reduces rectal dose and toxicity without influencing prostate immobilization. The RR can increase prostate and rectal inter- and intra-fractional stability without a clear influence on the reduction of rectal toxicity. Finally, it is unclear whether ProSpare is a suitable device reducing prostate motion. Further study will be required to clarify whether the prostate-stabilizing effects of the ERB and RR can result in a safe reduction of PTV margins and further sparing of organs at risks, especially the rectum.
Authors: Emile N J Th van Lin; Aswin L Hoffmann; Peter van Kollenburg; Jan Willem Leer; Andries G Visser Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher R King; James D Brooks; Harcharan Gill; Joseph C Presti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Satya Das; Tian Liu; Ashesh B Jani; Peter Rossi; Joseph Shelton; Zheng Shi; Mohammad K Khan Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Stephanie T H Peeters; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Claudio Fiorino; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld; Michael Pinkawa; Thomas Zilli; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 6.280