ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
A retrospective comparative evaluation of rectal preparation strategies for patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe performed a retrospective study comparing 2 rectal preparation regimens, Polyethylene Glycol 3350 (PEG) and Fleet Enema (FE), in patients undergoing prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).
methodsThe study included 24 patients receiving prostate SBRT (40 Gy in 5 fractions), for a total of 120 treatment fractions. Patients received either FE (N = 73) or PEG (N = 47) for rectal preparation. Outcomes included: (1) treatment time, measured from the initial setup cone-beam CT (CBCT) to the post-treatment CBCT (including rectal-related interventions, excluding machine delays); (2) intra-fraction motion, defined as the displacement vector between verification and post-treatment CBCTs registered to fiducial markers; and (3) clinical acceptability, determined by blinded review of all setup CBCTs by 3 radiation therapists (RTs), who scored each scan as either "Acceptable" (proceed directly to treatment) or "Need Intervention." Regression analysis was used to compare regimens.
resultsPopulation-averaged median treatment times were 14 minutes (95% CI, 5.8-22.2) for PEG and 11 minutes (95% CI, 9.6-12.3) for FE, with greater time variability in PEG (P < .001). Intra-fraction motion did not differ significantly between regimens. All 3 RTs judged the setup CBCTs as clinically acceptable for treatment 47.7% of the time (95% CI, 31.6%-63.8%) for the PEG regimen and 74.4% of the time (95% CI, 61%-87.8%) for the FE regimen.
conclusionsOverall, the FE regimen showed greater consistency in all outcome measures. This suggests an operational advantage for using FE since it results in more consistent patient treatment times without negatively impacting treatment quality and precision. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Daily FE improves the consistency of prostate SBRT treatment and enhances the clinical workflow by minimizing unplanned disruptions.
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.