Rectal spacer hydrogel in 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer : dosimetric analysis and preliminary patient-reported outcomes
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of the current analysis was to explore the hypothetical advantages using rectal spacer during 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to a no-rectal spacer hydrogel cohort of patients.
METHODS: The SBRT-protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions. Herein, we present a dosimetric analysis between spacer and no-spacer patients. Furthermore, treatment tolerability and feasibility were preliminarily assessed according to clinicians-reported outcomes at the end of treatment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in both arms. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score, ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires.
RESULTS: 120 plans (pre- and daily adaptive SBRT planning) were analyzed in 20 patients (10 patients in spacer group and 10 patients in no-spacer group) treated using 1.5T MR-guided adaptive SBRT. Statistically significant dosimetric advantages were observed in favor of the spacer insertion, improving the planning target volume coverage in terms of V33.2Gy >95% and planning target volume 37.5 Gy <2% mainly during daily-adapted SBRT. Also, rectum V32, V28 and V18Gy and bladder V35Gy <1 cc were significantly reduced in the spacer cohort. Concerning the PROMS, all questionnaires showed no difference between the pre- and post-SBRT evaluation in both arms, excepting the physical functioning item of EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire that was declined in the no-spacer group.
CONCLUSION: These preliminary results strongly suggest the adoption of perirectal spacer due to dosimetric advantages not only for rectal sparing but also for target coverage. Longer follow-up is required to validate the clinical impact in terms of clinicians-reported toxicity and PROMs.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This the first experience reporting preliminary data concerning the potential dosimetric impact of rectal hydrogel spacer on MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:94 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
The British journal of radiology - 94(2021), 1117 vom: 01. Jan., Seite 20200848 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Alongi, Filippo [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 04.01.2021 Date Revised 19.09.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1259/bjr.20200848 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM316645265 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM316645265 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225161533.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1259/bjr.20200848 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1055.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM316645265 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33095659 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Alongi, Filippo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Rectal spacer hydrogel in 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted SBRT for prostate cancer |b dosimetric analysis and preliminary patient-reported outcomes |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 04.01.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 19.09.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: The main aim of the current analysis was to explore the hypothetical advantages using rectal spacer during 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to a no-rectal spacer hydrogel cohort of patients | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: The SBRT-protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions. Herein, we present a dosimetric analysis between spacer and no-spacer patients. Furthermore, treatment tolerability and feasibility were preliminarily assessed according to clinicians-reported outcomes at the end of treatment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in both arms. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score, ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: 120 plans (pre- and daily adaptive SBRT planning) were analyzed in 20 patients (10 patients in spacer group and 10 patients in no-spacer group) treated using 1.5T MR-guided adaptive SBRT. Statistically significant dosimetric advantages were observed in favor of the spacer insertion, improving the planning target volume coverage in terms of V33.2Gy >95% and planning target volume 37.5 Gy <2% mainly during daily-adapted SBRT. Also, rectum V32, V28 and V18Gy and bladder V35Gy <1 cc were significantly reduced in the spacer cohort. Concerning the PROMS, all questionnaires showed no difference between the pre- and post-SBRT evaluation in both arms, excepting the physical functioning item of EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire that was declined in the no-spacer group | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: These preliminary results strongly suggest the adoption of perirectal spacer due to dosimetric advantages not only for rectal sparing but also for target coverage. Longer follow-up is required to validate the clinical impact in terms of clinicians-reported toxicity and PROMs | ||
| 520 | |a ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This the first experience reporting preliminary data concerning the potential dosimetric impact of rectal hydrogel spacer on MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Observational Study | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Hydrogels |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rigo, Michele |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Figlia, Vanessa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cuccia, Francesco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Giaj-Levra, Niccolò |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nicosia, Luca |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ricchetti, Francesco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vitale, Claudio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sicignano, Gianluisa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a De Simone, Antonio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Naccarato, Stefania |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ruggieri, Ruggero |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mazzola, Rosario |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The British journal of radiology |d 1945 |g 94(2021), 1117 vom: 01. Jan., Seite 20200848 |w (DE-627)NLM000080047 |x 1748-880X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:94 |g year:2021 |g number:1117 |g day:01 |g month:01 |g pages:20200848 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20200848 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 94 |j 2021 |e 1117 |b 01 |c 01 |h 20200848 | ||