前列腺癌放射治疗中的直肠周围间隔剂-系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.9 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Wspolczesna Onkologia-Contemporary Oncology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-13 DOI:10.5114/wo.2025.148388
Marcin Miszczyk, Rafał Stando, Giulio Francolini, Constantinos Zamboglou, Anna Cadenar, Agata Suleja, Tamás Fazekas, Akihiro Matsukawa, Ichiro Tsuboi, Mikołaj Przydacz, Michael S Leapman, Paweł Rajwa, Stéphane Supiot, Shahrokh F Shariat
{"title":"前列腺癌放射治疗中的直肠周围间隔剂-系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Marcin Miszczyk, Rafał Stando, Giulio Francolini, Constantinos Zamboglou, Anna Cadenar, Agata Suleja, Tamás Fazekas, Akihiro Matsukawa, Ichiro Tsuboi, Mikołaj Przydacz, Michael S Leapman, Paweł Rajwa, Stéphane Supiot, Shahrokh F Shariat","doi":"10.5114/wo.2025.148388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Perirectal spacers reduce the radiotherapy (RT) dose delivered to the rectum, but their impact on treatment toxicity remains debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise emerging data (PROSPERO: CRD42024506380).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through 2024/08/18 for prospective randomised (RCT) and non-randomised trials evaluating the clinical outcomes of perirectal spacing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Random effects generalised linear mixed models were used to pool odds ratios (OR) for rectal adverse events (AEs) from RCTs. Non-randomised trials were summarised qualitatively. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs (<i>n</i> = 645) were identified. The rates of grade ≥ 2 (G ≥ 2) rectal AEs in control groups were low, ranging 4.2-13.8% for early AEs and 0-1.4% for late AEs. Perirectal spacers were associated with decreased incidence of early G ≥ 2 rectal AEs (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.19-0.96), but not of late G ≥ 2 rectal AEs (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.02-2.91). Assuming a comparator risk of 7.1% and 1%, this corresponded to a number needed to treat of 26 patients to avoid one early AE, and 135 pa- tients to avoid one late G ≥ 2 AE, respectively. Randomised clinical trial were at moderate risk of bias due to concerns regarding the concealment of allocation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is evidence that perirectal spacers result in a small decrease in acute rectal toxicity. However, modern RT for clinically localised PCa is generally well-tolerated, and severe AEs are rare. Greater scrutiny of the risks and benefits associated with perirectal spacers is necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":49354,"journal":{"name":"Wspolczesna Onkologia-Contemporary Oncology","volume":"29 1","pages":"36-44"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12051878/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perirectal spacers in radiotherapy for prostate cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Marcin Miszczyk, Rafał Stando, Giulio Francolini, Constantinos Zamboglou, Anna Cadenar, Agata Suleja, Tamás Fazekas, Akihiro Matsukawa, Ichiro Tsuboi, Mikołaj Przydacz, Michael S Leapman, Paweł Rajwa, Stéphane Supiot, Shahrokh F Shariat\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/wo.2025.148388\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Perirectal spacers reduce the radiotherapy (RT) dose delivered to the rectum, but their impact on treatment toxicity remains debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise emerging data (PROSPERO: CRD42024506380).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through 2024/08/18 for prospective randomised (RCT) and non-randomised trials evaluating the clinical outcomes of perirectal spacing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Random effects generalised linear mixed models were used to pool odds ratios (OR) for rectal adverse events (AEs) from RCTs. Non-randomised trials were summarised qualitatively. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs (<i>n</i> = 645) were identified. The rates of grade ≥ 2 (G ≥ 2) rectal AEs in control groups were low, ranging 4.2-13.8% for early AEs and 0-1.4% for late AEs. Perirectal spacers were associated with decreased incidence of early G ≥ 2 rectal AEs (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.19-0.96), but not of late G ≥ 2 rectal AEs (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.02-2.91). Assuming a comparator risk of 7.1% and 1%, this corresponded to a number needed to treat of 26 patients to avoid one early AE, and 135 pa- tients to avoid one late G ≥ 2 AE, respectively. Randomised clinical trial were at moderate risk of bias due to concerns regarding the concealment of allocation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is evidence that perirectal spacers result in a small decrease in acute rectal toxicity. However, modern RT for clinically localised PCa is generally well-tolerated, and severe AEs are rare. Greater scrutiny of the risks and benefits associated with perirectal spacers is necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wspolczesna Onkologia-Contemporary Oncology\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"36-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12051878/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wspolczesna Onkologia-Contemporary Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/wo.2025.148388\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wspolczesna Onkologia-Contemporary Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wo.2025.148388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:直肠周围间隔剂减少了直肠放射治疗(RT)剂量,但其对治疗毒性的影响仍存在争议。我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以综合新出现的数据(PROSPERO: CRD42024506380)。材料和方法:通过MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus和谷歌Scholar检索到2024/08/18评估前列腺癌(PCa)患者直肠周围间距临床结局的前瞻性随机(RCT)和非随机试验。随机效应采用广义线性混合模型汇总随机对照试验中直肠不良事件(ae)的比值比(OR)。对非随机试验进行定性总结。使用RoB2和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入3个rct (n = 645)。对照组≥2级(G≥2)直肠不良事件发生率较低,早期不良事件发生率为4.2-13.8%,晚期不良事件发生率为0-1.4%。直肠周围垫片与早期G≥2直肠ae的发生率降低相关(OR: 0.43;95% CI: 0.19-0.96),但不包括晚期G≥2直肠ae (OR: 0.26;95% ci: 0.02-2.91)。假设比较风险分别为7.1%和1%,这对应于分别需要治疗26例患者以避免1例早期AE和135例患者以避免1例晚期G≥2 AE。由于考虑到分配的隐蔽性,随机临床试验具有中等偏倚风险。结论:有证据表明,直肠周围间隔剂可导致急性直肠毒性的轻微降低。然而,临床上局部PCa的现代放疗通常耐受良好,严重的ae很少见。有必要对直肠周围垫片的风险和益处进行更严格的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perirectal spacers in radiotherapy for prostate cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Perirectal spacers reduce the radiotherapy (RT) dose delivered to the rectum, but their impact on treatment toxicity remains debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise emerging data (PROSPERO: CRD42024506380).

Material and methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through 2024/08/18 for prospective randomised (RCT) and non-randomised trials evaluating the clinical outcomes of perirectal spacing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Random effects generalised linear mixed models were used to pool odds ratios (OR) for rectal adverse events (AEs) from RCTs. Non-randomised trials were summarised qualitatively. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools.

Results: Three RCTs (n = 645) were identified. The rates of grade ≥ 2 (G ≥ 2) rectal AEs in control groups were low, ranging 4.2-13.8% for early AEs and 0-1.4% for late AEs. Perirectal spacers were associated with decreased incidence of early G ≥ 2 rectal AEs (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.19-0.96), but not of late G ≥ 2 rectal AEs (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.02-2.91). Assuming a comparator risk of 7.1% and 1%, this corresponded to a number needed to treat of 26 patients to avoid one early AE, and 135 pa- tients to avoid one late G ≥ 2 AE, respectively. Randomised clinical trial were at moderate risk of bias due to concerns regarding the concealment of allocation.

Conclusions: There is evidence that perirectal spacers result in a small decrease in acute rectal toxicity. However, modern RT for clinically localised PCa is generally well-tolerated, and severe AEs are rare. Greater scrutiny of the risks and benefits associated with perirectal spacers is necessary.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Oncology is a journal aimed at oncologists, oncological surgeons, hematologists, radiologists, pathologists, radiotherapists, palliative care specialists, psychologists, nutritionists, and representatives of any other professions, whose interests are related to cancer. Manuscripts devoted to basic research in the field of oncology are also welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信