Introduction To investigate whether the implantation of a hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR) reduces long‐term rectal toxicity for prostate cancer patients treated with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods Patients with localised prostate cancer treated with 81 Gy in 45 fx of IMRT over 9 weeks were retrospectively compared: 65 patients with SpaceOAR and 56 patients without SpaceOAR. Planning aims restricted rectal doses to V40 Gy < 35%, V65 Gy < 17%, V75 Gy < 10%. Toxicities were evaluated between 3 months and 3 years after the completion of radiotherapy and were based on the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) assessment tool for diarrhoea, haemorrhoids, faecal incontinence and proctitis. Results The cumulative incidence of low‐grade diarrhoea (G1) was significantly higher in the non‐SpaceOAR group (21.4% vs 6.2%; P = 0.016). The cumulative incidence of proctitis (grades G1 and G2) was also higher in the non‐SpaceOAR group (26.7% vs 9.2%; P = 0.015); the cumulative incidence of G2 proctitis was higher in the latter group (P = 0.043). There were no differences between the treatment groups for cumulative incidences of faecal incontinence and/or haemorrhoids. Three years after IMRT, diarrhoea and proctitis were higher in the non‐SpaceOAR group, without reaching statistical significance. This finding was unchanged after correcting for baseline symptoms. Conclusion SpaceOAR is of benefit in reducing the cumulative incidence of low‐grade diarrhoea and proctitis for up to 3 years after intensity‐modulated radiotherapy.

A SpaceOAR programme in a regional setting with urologists performing low volumes of insertions (<1 per month on average) is of clinical benefit, and was associated with significantly lower radiation doses to the rectum and lower rates of acute diarrhoea.

IntroductionEvidence of variations in bladder filling effecting prostate stability and therefore treatment and side‐effects is well established with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aimed to increase bladder volume reproducibility for prostate radiation therapy by implementing a bladder scanning (BS) protocol that could assist patients' bladder filling at computed tomography (CT) simulation and treatment.MethodsBased on a retrospective review of 524 prostate cancer patients, a bladder volume of 250–350 mL was adopted as ‘ideal’ for achieving planning dose constraints. A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the clinical utility of measuring patients' bladder volumes at CT simulation using an ultrasound bladder scanner (Verathon 9400 BladderScan®). A revised bladder preparation protocol was utilised by a bladder scan group (BS) and a non‐BS group followed the standard departmental bladder preparation protocol. Time and volume data for the BS group (n = 17) were compared with the non‐BS group (n = 17).ResultsThe BS cohort had a CT bladder volume range of 221–588 mL; mean 379 mL, SD 125 mL. The non‐BS group had a larger range: 184–757 mL; mean 373 mL, SD 160 mL (P = 0.9171). There was a positive correlation between CT volume and BS volume in the BS group (r = 0.797; P = 0.0002) although BS volumes were smaller: range 160–420 mL; mean 251 mL; SD 91 mL; P < 0.0001). The maximum bladder volume receiving 50 Gy (V50) from the BS group was 46.4%, mean 24.5%. The maximum bladder V50 from the non‐BS group was 50.9%, mean 27.3% (P = 0.5178). Treatment data from weekly cone beam CT scans were also compared over 6 weeks. They were assessed as being a pass if bladder and bowel requirements were acceptable. The BS group proceeded to treatment on the basis of a pass 92.7% of the time, whereas the pass rate for non‐BS group was 75%; difference 17.7% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionThe BS is a useful tool for achieving consistent, appropriately sized bladder volumes in prostate cancer patients.

We report on our implementation of PPRT which takes into account nationally adopted guidelines, with a margin reduction supported by use of daily image guidance. Non-IMRT OAR constraints were met in most cases. IMRT-specific constraints were less often achieved despite margin reductions, suggesting the need for review of guidelines. Severe toxicity was rare, and most patients did not experience deterioration in urinary or bowel function attributable to radiotherapy.

No abstract