A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study compares the dose-sparing capabilities of rectal displacement devices in prostate cancer treatment, suggesting improved outcomes with IB implants.
Purpose Multiple rectal displacement device (RDD) technologies are in use or under development for the reduction of rectal toxicity in prostate cancer. In this multi-institutional retrospective cohort study, we compare the rectal dose-sparing capabilities of 2 types of RDD: polyethylene glycol (PEG) gel and inflatable balloon (IB). Materials and Methods Dose-volume parameters of D0.1cc, D1cc, and D2cc to the rectum were used as endpoints for late rectal toxicity. All dosimetry values were converted to equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions with α/β of 3 to better compare patients receiving differing treatment fractionation schedules. Results Dosimetric data were analyzed for 283 patients. Of those patients, 99 received a PEG implant, 92 received an IB implant, and 92 received neither implant. Both RDD types (PEG and IB) reduced the dose to the rectum for all dose-volume parameters (D0.1cc, D1cc, D2cc) compared to the control cohort. The IB implant yielded a dose reduction of 10% compared to control patients for D0.1cc, a reduction of 17% for D1cc, and a reduction of 21% for D2cc. The PEG implant resulted in a dose reduction of 2% compared to control patients for D0.1cc, a reduction of 7% for D1cc, and a reduction of 11% for D2cc. Compared to the PEG implant, the IB implant reduced the dose by 8% for D0.1cc, by 11% for D1cc, and by 12% for D2cc. Conclusions The use of both PEG and IB spacers significantly reduces dose to the rectum. The IB spacer provides a greater reduction in dose than the PEG spacer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harkness et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: