Chris Ho-Ming Wong, Ivan Ching-Ho Ko, David Ka-Wai Leung, Steffi Kar-Kei Yuen, Brian Siu, Cathy Yuan, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
{"title":"可生物降解的直肠周围间隔剂是否能减轻局部前列腺癌放射治疗中的治疗毒性——系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Chris Ho-Ming Wong, Ivan Ching-Ho Ko, David Ka-Wai Leung, Steffi Kar-Kei Yuen, Brian Siu, Cathy Yuan, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh","doi":"10.1038/s41391-025-00961-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is an increasing use of biodegradable peri-rectal spacer prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer to reduce treatment-associated rectal toxicity. While data from individual trials and cohorts is maturing, there is a lack of an updated quantitative analysis that includes outcomes following peri-rectal spacer. We aim to delineate the clinical impact of peri-rectal spacer in localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In March 2024, a systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for publications since the year 2010. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting comparative outcomes of patients with and without peri-rectal spacer prior to radiotherapy were considered. Outcomes are reported in binary fashion. Random effect meta-analysis with the use of weighted mean difference was adopted. Early (≤3 months) and late rectal toxicity stratified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria, early and late genitourinary toxicity, quality of life in bowel, sexual and urinary domains (in terms of minimal clinically important difference) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic review included 17 studies. There are 3 RCTs, 3 prospective cohorts, and 11 retrospective cohorts. Three thousand two hundred patients were included, with 1471 patients who received peri-rectal spacer and 1729 without. The use of spacer is associated with lower likelihood of late (1.62% vs. 9.35%, RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.15-0.42, P < 0.001) and early grade 2 or above late rectal toxicity (3.07% vs. 6.05%, RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.33-0.86, P < 0.001). No difference is observed in significant grade 3 or above GI (acute or late) events. There is no statistical difference in bowel-related bowel QoL (risk difference = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.38-0.06, P = 0.15). The perirectal spacer is not associated with negative impact to urinary or sexual domains of QoL either.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy, the use of peri-rectal spacer is associated with reduced rectal toxicities.</p>","PeriodicalId":20727,"journal":{"name":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does biodegradable peri-rectal spacer mitigate treatment toxicities in radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer-a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Chris Ho-Ming Wong, Ivan Ching-Ho Ko, David Ka-Wai Leung, Steffi Kar-Kei Yuen, Brian Siu, Cathy Yuan, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41391-025-00961-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is an increasing use of biodegradable peri-rectal spacer prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer to reduce treatment-associated rectal toxicity. While data from individual trials and cohorts is maturing, there is a lack of an updated quantitative analysis that includes outcomes following peri-rectal spacer. We aim to delineate the clinical impact of peri-rectal spacer in localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In March 2024, a systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for publications since the year 2010. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting comparative outcomes of patients with and without peri-rectal spacer prior to radiotherapy were considered. Outcomes are reported in binary fashion. Random effect meta-analysis with the use of weighted mean difference was adopted. Early (≤3 months) and late rectal toxicity stratified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria, early and late genitourinary toxicity, quality of life in bowel, sexual and urinary domains (in terms of minimal clinically important difference) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic review included 17 studies. There are 3 RCTs, 3 prospective cohorts, and 11 retrospective cohorts. Three thousand two hundred patients were included, with 1471 patients who received peri-rectal spacer and 1729 without. The use of spacer is associated with lower likelihood of late (1.62% vs. 9.35%, RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.15-0.42, P < 0.001) and early grade 2 or above late rectal toxicity (3.07% vs. 6.05%, RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.33-0.86, P < 0.001). No difference is observed in significant grade 3 or above GI (acute or late) events. There is no statistical difference in bowel-related bowel QoL (risk difference = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.38-0.06, P = 0.15). The perirectal spacer is not associated with negative impact to urinary or sexual domains of QoL either.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy, the use of peri-rectal spacer is associated with reduced rectal toxicities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-00961-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-00961-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:在前列腺癌放射治疗前,越来越多地使用可生物降解的直肠周围间隔剂来减少治疗相关的直肠毒性。虽然来自个体试验和队列的数据越来越成熟,但缺乏更新的定量分析,包括直肠周围间隔器后的结果。我们的目的是描述直肠周围间隔剂对局部前列腺癌放疗患者的临床影响。方法:2024年3月,系统检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库2010年以来的出版物。前瞻性和回顾性研究报告了在放疗前使用和不使用直肠周围间隔剂的患者的比较结果。结果以二进制方式报告。采用加权平均差随机效应meta分析。根据不良事件通用术语标准(CTCAE)标准对早期(≤3个月)和晚期直肠毒性进行分层,评估早期和晚期泌尿生殖系统毒性,肠、性和泌尿领域的生活质量(以最小临床重要差异为标准)。结果:系统评价纳入17项研究。共有3个随机对照试验,3个前瞻性队列和11个回顾性队列。纳入3200例患者,其中1471例患者接受直肠周围垫片,1729例未接受。使用间隔器与较低的晚期可能性相关(1.62% vs. 9.35%, RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.15-0.42, P)结论:在接受放射治疗的局限性前列腺癌患者中,使用直肠周围间隔器与直肠毒性降低相关。
Does biodegradable peri-rectal spacer mitigate treatment toxicities in radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: There is an increasing use of biodegradable peri-rectal spacer prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer to reduce treatment-associated rectal toxicity. While data from individual trials and cohorts is maturing, there is a lack of an updated quantitative analysis that includes outcomes following peri-rectal spacer. We aim to delineate the clinical impact of peri-rectal spacer in localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.
Methods: In March 2024, a systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for publications since the year 2010. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting comparative outcomes of patients with and without peri-rectal spacer prior to radiotherapy were considered. Outcomes are reported in binary fashion. Random effect meta-analysis with the use of weighted mean difference was adopted. Early (≤3 months) and late rectal toxicity stratified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria, early and late genitourinary toxicity, quality of life in bowel, sexual and urinary domains (in terms of minimal clinically important difference) were assessed.
Results: The systematic review included 17 studies. There are 3 RCTs, 3 prospective cohorts, and 11 retrospective cohorts. Three thousand two hundred patients were included, with 1471 patients who received peri-rectal spacer and 1729 without. The use of spacer is associated with lower likelihood of late (1.62% vs. 9.35%, RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.15-0.42, P < 0.001) and early grade 2 or above late rectal toxicity (3.07% vs. 6.05%, RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.33-0.86, P < 0.001). No difference is observed in significant grade 3 or above GI (acute or late) events. There is no statistical difference in bowel-related bowel QoL (risk difference = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.38-0.06, P = 0.15). The perirectal spacer is not associated with negative impact to urinary or sexual domains of QoL either.
Conclusion: In localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy, the use of peri-rectal spacer is associated with reduced rectal toxicities.
期刊介绍:
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases covers all aspects of prostatic diseases, in particular prostate cancer, the subject of intensive basic and clinical research world-wide. The journal also reports on exciting new developments being made in diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, drug discovery and medical management.
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases is of interest to surgeons, oncologists and clinicians treating patients and to those involved in research into diseases of the prostate. The journal covers the three main areas - prostate cancer, male LUTS and prostatitis.
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases publishes original research articles, reviews, topical comment and critical appraisals of scientific meetings and the latest books. The journal also contains a calendar of forthcoming scientific meetings. The Editors and a distinguished Editorial Board ensure that submitted articles receive fast and efficient attention and are refereed to the highest possible scientific standard. A fast track system is available for topical articles of particular significance.