ReviewStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026
Perirectal spacers and endorectal balloons in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a review of prospective studies.
Review in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEndorectal balloons (ERB) and perirectal spacers (RS) were developed to minimize rectal toxicity in prostate cancer radiotherapy. We conducted a review to assess available data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Literature search was conducted on 20th May, 2025, using PubMed. Prospective studies and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of ERB and PRS on rectal toxicity were included. Risk of bias was evaluated (MINORS and Cochrane Risk of Bias). Other relevant publications, guideline recommendations and cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed and summarized narratively.
resultsOf 112 identified records, 66 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 44 reports on RS (n = 4581 patients excluding reviews), 16 reports on ERB (n = 829) and six on both RS and ERB (n = 105, excluding reviews). This included nine publications on RS (n = 383), 12 publications on ERB (n = 204), and 3 original publications on both RS and ERB (n = 105) reporting on dosimetry. For RS, most publications covered hydrogel, 11 balloon and 7 hyaluronic acid. 30 publications reported follow-up data, with 8 studies reporting a median follow-up ≥ 24 months and one of more than five years. 35 publications reported clinical outcomes. We identified 2 RCTs. RS improves bowel QoL, but only one found a reduction of gastrointestinal G1 toxicity. For ERB, 12/16 studies were dosimetry studies, with 4 studies reporting clinical outcomes. One RCT was identified, with ERB providing a dosimetric benefit that also translates into reduced rectal late toxicity. The longest reported follow-up was 31 months median. 7/16 studies report 3D-conformal results. One study covering ERB and RS compared both modalities alone directly dosimetrically, showing an advantage for RS.
conclusionsOverall, prospective data quality for different tools for rectal management is poor, especially regarding late toxicity, and particularly for ERBs. Evidence for late-toxicity superiority remains scarce. Both show benefits over not using any device at all.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42171762What 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.