ArticleBMC urology2026
Comprehensive comparison of Bioprotect balloon and Barrigel hydrogel rectal spacers in proton therapy for prostate cancer.
Article in BMC urology, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the geometric consistency, dosimetric performance, and early clinical outcomes of the BioProtect balloon spacer versus the Barrigel hydrogel spacer in patients receiving proton therapy for prostate cancer.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 50 prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy: 25 with BioProtect and 25 with Barrigel. Anatomical displacement, rectal dose (V70/V60/V50), rectal wall infiltration (RWI), and early gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were assessed. Two treatment plans per patient (prostate-only and whole-pelvis) were generated using identical optimization workflows. Geometric and dosimetric comparisons were performed using t-tests, and correlations between anatomy and dose were evaluated.
resultsBioProtect achieved greater midgland (18.28 mm vs. 14.52 mm, p < 0.01) and apical (12.8 mm vs. 8.3 mm, p < 0.001) separation. Prostate-only plans with BioProtect showed significantly lower rectal V60 (2.02% vs. 6.69%) and V50 (4.28% vs. 10.16%) (p < 0.01). Whole-pelvis plans showed V70/V60/V50 reductions of 72.8%, 66.1%, and 66.7%, respectively (all p < 0.01). No RWI events occurred in the BioProtect arm, compared to three with Barrigel. Acute grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed in 0% of BioProtect vs. 17.4% of Barrigel patients at 3 months.
conclusionBioProtect demonstrated superior and more consistent rectal sparing in proton therapy compared to Barrigel. The fixed geometry balloon design yielded enhanced separation, reduced rectal dose, and fewer early GI toxicities. These findings suggest an dosimetric and clinical advantage of BioProtect in the proton therapy setting.
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.