ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Toxicity of rectal preparation strategies in ultra-hypofractionated SBRT for prostate cancer.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in five fractions is standard care for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Rectal preparation aims for consistent rectal filling to improve dose accuracy and reduce toxicity, however, current evidence is inconsistent and based on conventional fractionation. This study compares four rectal preparation strategies in terms of rectal volume, dose delivery, and acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Materials and methods: A total of 56 patients were allocated to four groups with different rectal preparation strategies: (1) no preparation (N = 14); (2) laxatives and a high‑fiber diet before planning CT and during treatment (N = 14); (3) laxatives before planning CT, without laxatives during treatment and without diet (N = 14); and (4) laxatives before planning CT and during treatment, without diet (N = 14). In total, 280 pre‑treatment cone‑beam CT scans were analyzed. Rectal volumes and dosimetric parameters were extracted and compared across groups. Both patient‑reported and physician‑reported gastrointestinal toxicity were evaluated. Results: Groups receiving extensive (laxatives and diet) or no preparation showed slightly greater rectal volume stability compared to groups receiving laxatives or laxatives only before planning CT (p = 0.001). Most dose parameters were comparable between groups. The group that received laxatives only before planning CT showed higher absolute rates of patient and physician reported gastrointestinal toxicity, although these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: None of all rectal preparation strategies consistently improved rectal volume stability, provided dosimetric benefit, or reduced gastrointestinal toxicity compared with no preparation. These findings do not support a meaningful benefit of routine use of rectal preparation in the context of modern daily CBCT-guided and adaptive radiotherapy workflows. Future research should prioritize patient-centred, less invasive approaches as the current evidence does not justify the routine use of rectal preparation.
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.