ReviewReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2025
Role of rectal spacers in gynecological cancer radiotherapy: reducing rectal dose and treatment-related toxicity.
Review in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporary intraperitoneal breast implant spacer to facilitate safe stereotactic body radiotherapy for recurrent high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Fistula occurrence after definitive chemoradiotherapy in metastatic or persistent cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This review examines the role of rectal spacers in gynecological cancer radiation therapy, highlighting their potential to mitigate radiation-induced toxicities, improve treatment precision, and enhance patient quality of life. The analysis explores different spacer materials, insertion techniques, and clinical applications while addressing current challenges and limitations. Materials and methods: A systematic review of studies evaluating rectal spacers in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for gynecological malignancies was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The review includes prospective and retrospective studies, clinical trials, and case reports from 2005-2024. Keywords used were "rectal spacers", "gynecological cancer radiotherapy", and "hydrogel spacers". Results: Rectal spacers demonstrate significant dosimetric advantages in reducing rectal dose exposure in gynecological cancers, particularly in brachytherapy. However, the spacer placement area overlaps with the clinical target volume (CTV), necessitating careful consideration in treatment planning. The integration of rectal spacers in SBRT is still emerging, with limited clinical data available. Limitations include cost, risk of migration, and patient discomfort. Additionally, cost-effectiveness and routine implementation in clinical practice require further investigation. Conclusions: While rectal spacers provide significant benefits in reducing toxicity, their role in treatment precision remains debatable. Further research is needed to refine patient selection and cost-effectiveness. Future research should focus on refining patient selection criteria, improving spacer stability, and evaluating long-term clinical and economic impacts.
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.