TY - JOUR
T1 - Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pivotal Trial
T2 - Dosimetric and Clinical Effects of Perirectal Spacer Application in Men Undergoing Prostate Image Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
AU - Mariados, Neil
AU - Sylvester, John
AU - Shah, Dhiren
AU - Karsh, Lawrence
AU - Hudes, Richard
AU - Beyer, David
AU - Kurtzman, Steven
AU - Bogart, Jeffrey
AU - Hsi, R. Alex
AU - Kos, Michael
AU - Ellis, Rodney
AU - Logsdon, Mark
AU - Zimberg, Shawn
AU - Forsythe, Kevin
AU - Zhang, Hong
AU - Soffen, Edward
AU - Francke, Patrick
AU - Mantz, Constantine
AU - Rossi, Peter
AU - Deweese, Theodore
AU - Hamstra, Daniel A.
AU - Bosch, Walter
AU - Gay, Hiram
AU - Michalski, Jeff
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by research funding from Augmenix , Inc.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Authors.
PY - 2015/8/1
Y1 - 2015/8/1
N2 - Purpose Perirectal spacing, whereby biomaterials are placed between the prostate and rectum, shows promise in reducing rectal dose during prostate cancer radiation therapy. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial was performed to assess outcomes following absorbable spacer (SpaceOAR system) implantation. Methods and Materials Overall, 222 patients with clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for treatment planning, followed with fiducial marker placement, and were randomized to receive spacer injection or no injection (control). Patients received postprocedure CT and MRI planning scans and underwent image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions). Spacer safety and impact on rectal irradiation, toxicity, and quality of life were assessed throughout 15 months. Results Spacer application was rated as "easy" or "very easy" 98.7% of the time, with a 99% hydrogel placement success rate. Perirectal spaces were 12.6 ± 3.9 mm and 1.6 ± 2.0 mm in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events, rectal perforations, serious bleeding, or infections within either group. Pre-to postspacer plans had a significant reduction in mean rectal V70 (12.4% to 3.3%, P<.0001). Overall acute rectal adverse event rates were similar between groups, with fewer spacer patients experiencing rectal pain (P=.02). A significant reduction in late (3-15 months) rectal toxicity severity in the spacer group was observed (P=.04), with a 2.0% and 7.0% late rectal toxicity incidence in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There was no late rectal toxicity greater than grade 1 in the spacer group. At 15 months 11.6% and 21.4% of spacer and control patients, respectively, experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life. MRI scans at 12 months verified spacer absorption. Conclusions Spacer application was well tolerated. Increased perirectal space reduced rectal irradiation, reduced rectal toxicity severity, and decreased rates of patients experiencing declines in bowel quality of life. The spacer appears to be an effective tool, potentially enabling advanced prostate RT protocols.
AB - Purpose Perirectal spacing, whereby biomaterials are placed between the prostate and rectum, shows promise in reducing rectal dose during prostate cancer radiation therapy. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial was performed to assess outcomes following absorbable spacer (SpaceOAR system) implantation. Methods and Materials Overall, 222 patients with clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for treatment planning, followed with fiducial marker placement, and were randomized to receive spacer injection or no injection (control). Patients received postprocedure CT and MRI planning scans and underwent image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions). Spacer safety and impact on rectal irradiation, toxicity, and quality of life were assessed throughout 15 months. Results Spacer application was rated as "easy" or "very easy" 98.7% of the time, with a 99% hydrogel placement success rate. Perirectal spaces were 12.6 ± 3.9 mm and 1.6 ± 2.0 mm in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events, rectal perforations, serious bleeding, or infections within either group. Pre-to postspacer plans had a significant reduction in mean rectal V70 (12.4% to 3.3%, P<.0001). Overall acute rectal adverse event rates were similar between groups, with fewer spacer patients experiencing rectal pain (P=.02). A significant reduction in late (3-15 months) rectal toxicity severity in the spacer group was observed (P=.04), with a 2.0% and 7.0% late rectal toxicity incidence in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There was no late rectal toxicity greater than grade 1 in the spacer group. At 15 months 11.6% and 21.4% of spacer and control patients, respectively, experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life. MRI scans at 12 months verified spacer absorption. Conclusions Spacer application was well tolerated. Increased perirectal space reduced rectal irradiation, reduced rectal toxicity severity, and decreased rates of patients experiencing declines in bowel quality of life. The spacer appears to be an effective tool, potentially enabling advanced prostate RT protocols.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937513152&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937513152&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.04.030
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.04.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 26054865
AN - SCOPUS:84937513152
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 92
SP - 971
EP - 977
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 5
ER -