V78, V74, V70.2, and V65 Gy (RBE) were 2.02, 5.85, 7.75, and 10.1%, which were lowered with the use of PBS(ERB) to 0.95, 3.98, 5.77, and 7.87%, respectively (P<0.001). With the use of PBS(Gel), mean rectal V78, V74, V70.2, and V65 Gy (RBE) were 0.09, 0.52, 1.00, and 1.94%, significantly lower than both US(ERB) and PBS(ERB), (P<0.001). PBS(Gel) reduced the mean rectal V70.2 Gy (RBE) by 83% when compared to PBS(ERB) and by 87% when compared to US(ERB). Target coverage, defined by PTV D99%, and bladder sparing (bladder V90%) were not significantly different between any of the groups. All Gel placements were performed successfully. Conclusion: PBS proton therapy improved rectal sparing when compared to uniform scanning in the treatment of prostate cancer patients with an endorectal balloon. However, the lowest rectal doses were achieved in patients treated with a combination of PBS proton therapy and a hydrogel rectal spacer, particularly in the higher dose range of 65-78 Gy (RBE). This significant improvement in rectal sparing was achieved despite the use of larger PTV margins in patients treated with the hydrogel spacer.

Purpose: Rectal hydrogel spacer has been shown to improve rectal sparing in prostate radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of rectal sparing throughout treatment in patients undergoing proton therapy. Methods: At our facility, prostate cancer patients are treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy, utilizing an endorectal balloon (ERB) or rectal spacer hydrogel (Gel) “SpaceOAR” implant. All patients were treated with a full bladder and empty rectum (low residue diet and stool softeners). A quality assurance CT (QACT) was performed periodically throughout treatment to ensure rectal filling consistency and sparing in 41 patients treated with Gel. The treatment planning (TP) dose was calculated on each QACT and the rectum V90%, V75%, V65%, V50%, and V40% were recorded. QACT scans were acquired on day 0, week 1, week 3, and week 5. Results: 144 QACT scans were analyzed, each patient receiving 3–4 QACTs. Rectum V90% was within +/−1% of the TP dose in 70% of the QACTs and within +/−5% in 95% of scans. From previous data analyses, our ERB rectum V90% average is 6%. This value was used as an upper threshold for the Gel QACT analysis. 5 of the 41 patients (12%), corresponding to 7 QACTs, had a rectum V90% that exceeded 6% on one or more QACTs. However, the average rectal V90% measured over multiple QACTs never exceeded 6%. 55% of the QACTs had a rectum volume within 5cc of the TPCT volume, 68% were within 10cc. Conclusion: In this study, we have shown that a majority of our prostate patients can maintain consistent rectal sparing when treated with a hydrogel spacer. QACT rectal V90% exceeding our threshold was most often related to increased rectal filling and gas, which was addressed with improved dietary compliance and the intensification of stool softeners or laxatives.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the consistency of rectal sparing using multiple periodic quality assurance computerized tomography imaging scans (QACT) obtained during the course of proton therapy for patients with prostate cancer treated with a hydrogel spacer. Forty‐one low‐ and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer patients treated with image‐guided proton therapy with rectal spacer hydrogel were analyzed. To assess the reproducibility of rectal sparing with the hydrogel spacer, three to four QACTs were performed for each patient on day 1 and during weeks 1, 3, and 5 of treatment. The treatment plan was calculated on the QACT and the rectum V90%, V75%, V65%, V50%, and V40% were evaluated. For the retrospective analysis, we evaluated each QACT and compared it to the corresponding treatment planning CT (TPCT), to determine the average change in rectum DVH points. We were also interested in how many patients exceeded an upper rectum V90% threshold on a QACT. Finally, we were interested in a correlation between rectum volume and V90%. On each QACT, if the rectum V90% exceeded the upper threshold of 6%, the attending physician was notified and the patient was typically prescribed additional stool softeners or laxatives and reminded of dietary compliance. In all cases of the rectum V90% exceeding the threshold, the patient had increased gas and/or stool, compared to the TPCT. On average, the rectum V90% calculated on the QACT was 0.81% higher than that calculated on the TPCT. The average increase in V75%, V65%, V50%, and V40% on the QACT was 1.38%, 1.59%, 1.87%, and 2.17%, respectively. The rectum V90% was within ± 1% of the treatment planning dose in 71.2% of the QACTs, and within ± 5% in 93.2% of the QACTs. The 6% threshold for rectum V90% was exceeded in 7 out of 144 QACTs (4.8%), identified in 5 of the 41 patients. We evaluated the average rectum V90% across all QACTs for each of these patients, and it was found that the rectum V90% never exceeded 6%. 53% of the QACTs had a rectum volume within 5 cm3 of the TPCT volume, 68% were within 10 cm3. We found that patients who exceeded the threshold on one or more QACTs had a lower TPCT rectal volume than the overall average. By extrapolating patient anatomy from three to four QACT scans, we have shown that the use of hydrogel in conjunction with our patient diet program and use of stool softeners is effective in achieving consistent rectal sparing in patients undergoing proton therapy.