ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Hydrogel Spacer Insertion Prior to Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy to the Prostate: A Comparative Study.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The insertion of a hydrogel spacer between the rectum and prostate before stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer significantly reduces the radiation dose to the rectum. Despite the widespread use of this technique, clinical data remain sparse. The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical benefit of a hydrogel spacer in SBRT. Methods and Materials: The database of a tertiary medical center was retrospectively searched for all patients with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT, with or without the insertion of a hydrogel spacer, between June 2013 and December 2018. The groups were compared for rectal and urinary toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4) using the χ Results: The cohort included 308 patients who underwent SBRT with (n = 227) or without (n = 75) the insertion of a hydrogel spacer. Rates of grade 2 or higher rectal toxicity were 31 of 223 patients (13.9%) in the spacer group and 9 of 75 patients (12%) in the nonspacer group. Corresponding rates of urinary grade 2 toxicity were 58 of 223 patients (26%) and 14 of 75 patients (18.6%), respectively. Neither difference was statistically significant. Similar findings were observed in the subgroup analysis. Severe complications related to the procedure occurred in 5 of 227 cases (2.2%). Conclusions: This study did not demonstrate a significant effect of hydrogel spacer insertion on reducing rectal or urinary toxicity in patients with prostate cancer undergoing SBRT. Given the dual consideration of questionable clinical benefit and the risk of debilitating complications, additional studies should be performed on the selective use of this procedure.
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.