Josephine Kang1, Bilal Chughtai2, Mark N Alshak3, Andrew Eidelberg3, Susana Martinez Diaz4, Michelina D Stoddard5, Silvia Formenti1, Himanshu Nagar1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College/New York Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA. bic9008@med.cornell.edu. 3. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College/New York Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used for prostate cancer, but has morbidity as both the bladder and rectum are radiated during treatment. Our goal was to document and compare lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) among men who underwent SBRT with and without SpaceOAR hydrogel (Augmenix, Inc., Bedford, MA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 87 men (50 SpaceOAR and 37 non-SpaceOAR) who underwent SBRT. Primary outcomes were patient reported symptoms during radiation therapy, pharmacotherapy usage, and urologic and bowel survey scores up to 6-months post-SBRT. RESULTS: 78% of men were on α-inhibitors at the end of SBRT, an increase from 27.6% baseline usage (p < 0.001). Post-SBRT urinary frequency was more common in the non-SpaceOAR group versus the SpaceOAR group (68% versus 38%, p = 0.006), as was nocturia (35% vs. 8%, p = 0.002). Acute gastrointestinal symptoms did not differ. 58.8% of men were on α-inhibitors at 6-months of follow-up post-SBRT, an increase from 27.6% baseline usage (p < 0.001). Importantly, there was a difference of α-inhibitor use between non-SpaceOAR and SpaceOAR groups at the end of SBRT and at 1.5-, 3-, and 6-months follow up (86% vs. 53% [p = 0.002], 83% vs. 53% [p = 0.005], 72% vs. 49% [p = 0.038], respectively). CONCLUSION: LUTS after SBRT remains a significant problem for men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. LUTS affects men during and up to 6-months following SBRT. Owing to these increased LUTS, preemptive minimally invasive solutions and their mechanisms of protection, including the SpaceOAR, should be further investigated.
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used for prostate cancer, but has morbidity as both the bladder and rectum are radiated during treatment. Our goal was to document and compare lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) among men who underwent SBRT with and without SpaceOAR hydrogel (Augmenix, Inc., Bedford, MA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 87 men (50 SpaceOAR and 37 non-SpaceOAR) who underwent SBRT. Primary outcomes were patient reported symptoms during radiation therapy, pharmacotherapy usage, and urologic and bowel survey scores up to 6-months post-SBRT. RESULTS: 78% of men were on α-inhibitors at the end of SBRT, an increase from 27.6% baseline usage (p < 0.001). Post-SBRT urinary frequency was more common in the non-SpaceOAR group versus the SpaceOAR group (68% versus 38%, p = 0.006), as was nocturia (35% vs. 8%, p = 0.002). Acute gastrointestinal symptoms did not differ. 58.8% of men were on α-inhibitors at 6-months of follow-up post-SBRT, an increase from 27.6% baseline usage (p < 0.001). Importantly, there was a difference of α-inhibitor use between non-SpaceOAR and SpaceOAR groups at the end of SBRT and at 1.5-, 3-, and 6-months follow up (86% vs. 53% [p = 0.002], 83% vs. 53% [p = 0.005], 72% vs. 49% [p = 0.038], respectively). CONCLUSION: LUTS after SBRT remains a significant problem for men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. LUTS affects men during and up to 6-months following SBRT. Owing to these increased LUTS, preemptive minimally invasive solutions and their mechanisms of protection, including the SpaceOAR, should be further investigated.
Authors: Mark K Buyyounouski; Robert A Price; Eleanor E R Harris; Robert Miller; Wolfgang Tomé; Tracey Schefter; E Ishmael Parsai; Andre A Konski; Paul E Wallner Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anders Widmark; Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson; Lars Beckman; Camilla Thellenberg-Karlsson; Morten Hoyer; Magnus Lagerlund; Jon Kindblom; Claes Ginman; Bengt Johansson; Kirsten Björnlinger; Mihajl Seke; Måns Agrup; Per Fransson; Björn Tavelin; David Norman; Björn Zackrisson; Harald Anderson; Elisabeth Kjellén; Lars Franzén; Per Nilsson Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D W Nathan Kim; L Chinsoo Cho; Christopher Straka; Alana Christie; Yair Lotan; David Pistenmaa; Brian D Kavanagh; Akash Nanda; Patrick Kueplian; Jeffrey Brindle; Susan Cooley; Alida Perkins; David Raben; Xian-Jin Xie; Robert D Timmerman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: William C Jackson; Jessica Silva; Holly E Hartman; Robert T Dess; Amar U Kishan; Whitney H Beeler; Laila A Gharzai; Elizabeth M Jaworski; Rohit Mehra; Jason W D Hearn; Todd M Morgan; Simpa S Salami; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; Samuel Kaffenberger; Paul L Nguyen; Neil Desai; Felix Y Feng; Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark E Hwang; Mark Mayeda; Maria Liz; Brenda Goode-Marshall; Lissette Gonzalez; Carl D Elliston; Catherine S Spina; Oscar A Padilla; Sven Wenske; Israel Deutsch Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Douglas H Brand; Alison C Tree; Peter Ostler; Hans van der Voet; Andrew Loblaw; William Chu; Daniel Ford; Shaun Tolan; Suneil Jain; Alexander Martin; John Staffurth; Philip Camilleri; Kiran Kancherla; John Frew; Andrew Chan; Ian S Dayes; Daniel Henderson; Stephanie Brown; Clare Cruickshank; Stephanie Burnett; Aileen Duffton; Clare Griffin; Victoria Hinder; Kirsty Morrison; Olivia Naismith; Emma Hall; Nicholas van As Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 41.316