ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
The impact of rectal spacers in MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Magnetic resonance-guided adaptive stereotactic radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients: a systematic literature review.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for prostate cancer has increased significantly. However, SABR can elevate the risk of moderate gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. Rectal spacers mitigate this risk by reducing the rectal dose. This study evaluates the impact of rectal spacers in MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) for prostate SABR. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on twenty patients with localised prostate cancer treated on the Unity MR-Linac at a single centre. Half of the cohort (n = 10) had rectal spacers placed before treatment. The adapt-to-shape strategy was used for online MRgART, and non-adapted plans were later generated offline for comparison. Dosimetric assessments were made between spacer and no-spacer cohorts, and between online adapted and non-adapted plans. Clinician-reported outcomes for genitourinary (GU) and GI toxicity were assessed at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-treatment using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0. Results: No grade 2 or higher toxicity was observed in either cohort. Overall, the dosimetric analysis showed comparable results between the cohorts for target volumes, with D95% of 36.3 Gy in the spacer cohort and 36.0 Gy in the no-spacer cohort (p = 0.08). The spacer cohort demonstrated significant benefits in all rectal dose objectives (p < 0.0001) and in some bladder objectives (V40, p = 0.03; V36, p = 0.03). Failure rates for achieving planning objectives were similar between spacer and no-spacer groups for online adapted plans, with most rates ranging from 0 % to 4 % in both groups. Conclusion: The findings from this cohort suggest that MRgART is safe and effective for prostate SABR, with comparable toxicity rates in both spacer and no-spacer cohorts. While rectal spacers offer dosimetric advantages, the adaptive nature of MRgART can mitigate some dosimetric disparities, potentially reducing the need for invasive spacer placement. However, further studies with larger patient populations are needed to confirm these results.
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.