ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative evaluation of symmetry, dosimetry, and toxicity in prostate cancer EBRT with spacing techniques.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The proximity of the rectum to the prostate in radiation therapy for prostate cancer presents a significant dosimetric challenge, leading to high rectal doses and resulting in detrimental side effects. Perirectal tissue spacing reduces rectal dose and gastrointestinal toxicities by mechanically separating these organs. We retrospectively compared balloon and PEG hydrogel spacers, focusing on spacer geometry, symmetry, rectal dosimetry, and GI/GU toxicity. Methods: Sixty-seven men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT were analysed (balloon = 33; PEG hydrogel = 34). Symmetry was graded on axial CT at apex, mid-gland, and base with a five-tier midline scale (SYM-1 = optimal). Anteroposterior, laterolateral, and craniocaudal separations were measured. Rectal V60%-V100% were taken from dose-volume histograms. Acute (≤90 d) and late (>90 d) GI/GU toxicities were scored (CTCAE v4.0). Two-sided p ≤ 0.05 was significant. Results: Optimal symmetry occurred in 33% (balloon) vs 14% (PEG hydrogel); asymmetry SYM-4/5 in 27% vs 24% (p = 0.21). At the apex, balloon spacers consistently created measurable separation, whereas 3 patients (9%) with PEG hydrogel demonstrated complete absence of spacing. Mean anteroposterior separation was larger with balloon at all levels (p < 0.001). Laterolateral differed inferiorly (2.4 cm vs 1.9 cm; p = 0.01). Craniocaudal length averaged 4.8 cm vs 4.3 cm (p < 0.001). Rectal V60-V100% showed no significant differences. Acute toxicity was low: GI grade 1 in 6% (balloon) vs 0%, with one grade 3 GI in PEG hydrogel; GU grade 1 in 13% vs 29%, grade 2 in 10% vs 7%. Late events: GI grade 2 in 0% vs 7%; GU grade 3 in one patient per cohort (~3%); other late toxicities mild and similar. Conclusion: The balloon spacer achieved greater, more uniform separation including improved apical symmetry, and showed fewer early GI events and lower mild acute GU rates, while rectal doses remained comparable. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm long-term benefit.
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.