ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Dosimetry, Toxicity and Stability Associated With a Hyaluronic Acid-Based Prostate-Rectal Spacing Device During Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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
Abstract
introductionHypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for localised prostate cancer may increase gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. This study evaluated spacer geometry, dosimetric and clinical outcomes associated with the use of a stabilised hyaluronic acid (sHA)-based rectal spacer, when inserted prior to HFRT, compared to a non-spacer cohort.
methodThis was a retrospective comparative cohort study of patients receiving HFRT (60 Gy in 20 fractions) between July 2019 and December 2023 at two centres from a single institution. Prostate-rectum spacing was measured at apex, mid-gland, and base levels at simulation as baseline and on five cone beam CT scans during treatment. Rectal dose-volume metrics and planning target volume (PTV) coverage were compared. Toxicities were retrospectively graded using CTCAE Version 5.0 for participants with a minimum follow-up of 3 months.
resultsNinety-one patients were included in this study; 64 with sHA-based spacers and 27 without spacing. The mean baseline spacing was 0.8, 1.0 and 0.9 cm at apex, mid-gland and base, respectively, and this separation remained stable throughout treatment. The spacer cohort demonstrated significantly lower rectal doses across all metrics except V60Gy and achieved slightly higher PTV coverage (D98%: 57.8 vs. 57.3 Gy, p < 0.001). Acute GI toxicity (grade ≥ 1) was lower in the spacer cohort (23.5% vs. 48.0%; OR = 0.33, p = 0.05), with grade ≥ 2 toxicity in 2.9% versus 20.0%. Genitourinary toxicity rates were comparable between cohorts. No complications associated with spacer insertion were recorded.
conclusionssHA-based rectal spacers provided physically stable spacing throughout treatment, facilitating significant reductions in rectal dose and a favourable toxicity profile. This study adds further evidence to support the use of sHA-based spacers in prostate HFRT.
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.