ArticleBMJ open2022
Delphi study to identify consensus on patient selection for hydrogel rectal spacer use during radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of MRI anatomy in machine learning predictive models to assess hydrogel spacer benefit for prostate cancer patients.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Role of rectal spacers in gynecological cancer radiotherapy: reducing rectal dose and treatment-related toxicity.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025Review
- [Advances in research on organ-at-risk protection in pelvic tumor external beam radiotherapy].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify consensus on patient prioritisation for rectal hydrogel spacer use during radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in the UK.
designDelphi study consisting of two rounds of online questionnaires, two virtual advisory board meetings and a final online questionnaire.
settingRadical radiation therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer in the UK.
participantsSix leading clinical oncologists and one urologist from across the UK.
interventionsRectal hydrogel spacer. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: None reported.
resultsThe panel reached consensus on the importance of minimising toxicity for treatments with curative intent and that even low-grade toxicity-related adverse events can significantly impact quality of life. There was agreement that despite meeting rectal dose constraints, too many patients experience rectal toxicity and that rectal hydrogel spacers in eligible patients significantly reduces toxicity-related adverse events. However, as a consequence of funding limitations, patients need to be prioritised for spacer use. A higher benefit of spacers can be expected in patients on anticoagulation and in patients with diabetes or inflammatory bowel disease, but consensus could not be reached regarding patient groups expected to benefit less. While radiation therapy regimen is not a main factor determining prioritisation, higher benefit is expected in ultrahypofractionated regimens.
conclusionThere is a strong and general agreement that all patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical radiation therapy have the potential to benefit from hydrogel spacers. Currently, not all patients who could potentially benefit can access hydrogel spacers, and access is unequal. Implementation of the consensus recommendations would likely help prioritise and equalise access to rectal spacers for patients in the UK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.