Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083610›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025

Patient experience preparing for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

S E Alexander, J Selous-Hodges, A Araujo, L Booth, L Delacroix, E Garrad, A Gordon, C Graham, A Guerra, C Gulyaeva and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Feasibility of longitudinal prostate RPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Toxicity of rectal preparation strategies in ultra-hypofractionated SBRT for prostate cancer.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

S E AlexanderThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
J Selous-HodgesThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
A AraujoThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
L BoothThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
L DelacroixThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
E GarradThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
A GordonThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
C GrahamThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
A GuerraThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
C GulyaevaThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
C OckwellThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
S ShireThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdon.
U OelfkeThe Joint Department of Physics, The Royal Marsden Hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
H A McNairThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.
A C TreeThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Bladder and rectal preparation regimes for prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy (RT) can heighten anxiety before and during RT. Patient's perception of RT preparation is under-represented in the literature. To address this gap, patient's experience of preparation with respect to understanding, comfort, anxiety, effectiveness and impact on daily life was examined. Materials and methods: A novel patient preparation survey was created and validated, it contained 12 original questions related to general, bladder and rectal preparation. Plus, the Patient Health Questionnaire 4 (PHQ4) and question 15 of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC).Eligible patients were individuals referred for prostate or prostate bed +/- pelvic lymph node RT from March-May 2024. Surveys were issued immediately after the patient's planning scan, those completing the survey at this timepoint were asked to repeat it in their first and final weeks of RT. Results: The survey was completed by 103/125 eligible patients at their planning scan, 47/103 in the first and 52/103 in the final week of RT. Perception of preparation was largely positive. For general and bladder preparation positive question response rate ranged from 55 to 98 % and negative from 0 to 26 %. Rectal preparation response rate was 59-100 % positive and 0-35 % negative. Difficulty maintaining a full bladder and using enemas was greatest at the end of RT.No significant difference in experience was found for participants using or not using enemas for preparation. Anxiety and depression (PHQ4) affected 12-13 % of respondents, and significantly more patients reported bowel toxicity (EPIC), in the last week of RT compared to earlier timepoints. Conclusion: The authors conclude that the preparation needs of their patients are well met. However, a considerable number did find preparation difficult, disruptive and ineffective, more so at the end of treatment. Further qualitative analysis of patient's experience is needed to better understand why individuals experience varies.

Indexed as

Bladder and rectal preparationPatient experiencePatient preparation for radiotherapyProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40083610
PMCPMC11905849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.