The objective of this overview was to critically evaluate the effect of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogel spacers during prostate brachytherapy with regard to dosimetric and clinical benefits, as well as procedure-related toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search in the PubMed database was performed. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies, involving 615 patients with PEG hydrogel injection, were included. Overall, patients well tolerated the implantation of PEG hydrogel spacers with an excellent safety profile. However, although there were some procedure-related complications, rates of these complications were very rare. Toxicities related to the spacer were limited to Grade 1 rectal discomfort and pain (9/615 patients), Grade 2 rectal ulceration (1 in 615 patients), perineal abscess (1 in 615 patients), and bacterial prostatitis (2/615 patients) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scheme. The application of PEG hydrogel spacers significantly reduced radiation doses to the rectum during prostate brachytherapy in the different setting. Although there was no prospective randomized clinical trial, retrospective studies showed that reducing rectal doses by the implantation of PEG hydrogel may result in an improvement in rectal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The insertion of hydrogel spacers is safe, resulting in a significant decrease in rectal doses. This may lead to a reduction in rectal or gastrointestinal toxicity. Prospective randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm the clinical impact of rectal dosimetric improvements.

With the advent of complex and precise radiation therapy techniques, the use of relatively small fields is needed. Using such field sizes can cause uncertainty in dosimetry; therefore, special attention is required both in dose calculations and measurements. There are several challenges in small-field dosimetry such as the steep gradient of the radiation field, volume averaging effect, lack of charged particle equilibrium, partial occlusion of radiation source, beam alignment, and unable to use a reference dosimeter. Due to these challenges, special dosimeters are needed for small-field dosimetry, and this review article discusses this topic.

No abstract

Purpose: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a rectal retractor (RR) designed to protect rectal tissue in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) by pushing rectal wall (RW) away from the prostate. Materials and Methods: Twelve patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled into this study. Patients underwent two computed tomography (CT) scans without and with RR. A prescription of 80 Gy in 40 fractions was planned on CT scans with and without RR. This study evaluates the ability of the RR in RW dose reduction, in particular reduction of the RW V 70Gy≥ 25% in comparison with the plan without RR dose-volume histograms were generated with and without RR. The patient's tolerance was assessed by patient-reported outcomes. Results: The planning target volume coverage was equal for both without and with RR (P = 0.155). The mean dose to the RW was statistically significantly lower for the plan with RR than that for the plan without RR, a mean reduction of 5.8 Gy (P = 0.003). Significant relative reductions in rectal dose-volume parameters whether in absolute volume (cc) or as a percentage of contoured RW were detected. A relative reduction more than 25% in RW V70Gy(%) in 100% of patients was achieved. The rectal retraction resulted in a significant increase in the prostate to the rectum space at the prostate midgland level, an absolute increase of 2.7 mm. The retraction of the rectum induced a mean (±standard deviation) pain score of 2.7 (±1.3) according to the visual analog score. Conclusion: The application of a RR showed a remarkable rectal sparing effect during prostate IMRT. This may lead to reduced acute and late rectal toxicities in prostate IMRT.

No abstract