美国近距离治疗学会(ABS)直肠前列腺凝胶间隔器共识声明。

IF 1.8
Aurelie Garant, Craig E Grossman, Martin T King, Arun Goel, Emily S Weg, Daniel N Costa, Hong Zhang, Jeffrey C Gahan, Khush Aujla, Lara Hathout, Michael R Folkert
{"title":"美国近距离治疗学会(ABS)直肠前列腺凝胶间隔器共识声明。","authors":"Aurelie Garant, Craig E Grossman, Martin T King, Arun Goel, Emily S Weg, Daniel N Costa, Hong Zhang, Jeffrey C Gahan, Khush Aujla, Lara Hathout, Michael R Folkert","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2025.07.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This consensus statement provides recommendations based on expert opinion and best available evidence for the use of rectoprostatic gel spacers (RPS) in the setting of definitive radiation therapy (RT) for men with prostate cancer (PC) and the prevention and management of associated adverse events.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) assembled an expert panel of 11 physicians to review key aspects of RPS in the definitive treatment of PC with RT. After multiple iterations by the panel to refine key questions and statements regarding RPS utilization in PC RT, a Delphi consensus method was employed to generate consensus statements. A review of prospective and retrospective RPS studies in the setting of external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT, including low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR)), and combinations of EBRT and BT for treatment of PC was performed to complement the expert panel's recommendations, focused on indications, expected benefits, known risks, and insights on adverse event management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight key questions with a total of 27 subsections regarding RPS indications and adverse events were addressed by the panel. Following three anonymized survey iterations which included panel discussion meetings, consensus statements were reached for 24 of the 27 reviewed items. While the panel reached consensus in support of RPS for external beam photon RT, proton RT, and LDR BT monotherapy, the panel did not reach consensus on the use of RPS for HDR monotherapy or combination BT with EBRT. Consensus was reached in most cases for contraindications to RPS placement, except for scenarios involving tumor abutment of the neurovascular bundle (NVB). Consensus was reached for imaging indications, elements of informed consent, and management of rectal wall infiltration (RWI).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This consensus statement summarizes the current indications for RPS placement and the management of potential adverse events prior to proceeding with definitive RT for PC.</p>","PeriodicalId":93914,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) rectoprostatic gel spacer consensus statement.\",\"authors\":\"Aurelie Garant, Craig E Grossman, Martin T King, Arun Goel, Emily S Weg, Daniel N Costa, Hong Zhang, Jeffrey C Gahan, Khush Aujla, Lara Hathout, Michael R Folkert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.brachy.2025.07.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This consensus statement provides recommendations based on expert opinion and best available evidence for the use of rectoprostatic gel spacers (RPS) in the setting of definitive radiation therapy (RT) for men with prostate cancer (PC) and the prevention and management of associated adverse events.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) assembled an expert panel of 11 physicians to review key aspects of RPS in the definitive treatment of PC with RT. After multiple iterations by the panel to refine key questions and statements regarding RPS utilization in PC RT, a Delphi consensus method was employed to generate consensus statements. A review of prospective and retrospective RPS studies in the setting of external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT, including low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR)), and combinations of EBRT and BT for treatment of PC was performed to complement the expert panel's recommendations, focused on indications, expected benefits, known risks, and insights on adverse event management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of eight key questions with a total of 27 subsections regarding RPS indications and adverse events were addressed by the panel. Following three anonymized survey iterations which included panel discussion meetings, consensus statements were reached for 24 of the 27 reviewed items. While the panel reached consensus in support of RPS for external beam photon RT, proton RT, and LDR BT monotherapy, the panel did not reach consensus on the use of RPS for HDR monotherapy or combination BT with EBRT. Consensus was reached in most cases for contraindications to RPS placement, except for scenarios involving tumor abutment of the neurovascular bundle (NVB). Consensus was reached for imaging indications, elements of informed consent, and management of rectal wall infiltration (RWI).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This consensus statement summarizes the current indications for RPS placement and the management of potential adverse events prior to proceeding with definitive RT for PC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brachytherapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brachytherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2025.07.013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2025.07.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本共识声明提供了基于专家意见和现有最佳证据的建议,用于前列腺癌(PC)患者的明确放射治疗(RT)以及相关不良事件的预防和管理。材料和方法:美国近距离放射治疗学会(ABS)召集了一个由11名医生组成的专家小组,审查RPS在RT治疗PC的决定性治疗中的关键方面。经过小组多次迭代,以完善关于RPS在PC RT中的应用的关键问题和陈述,采用德尔菲共识法产生共识陈述。为了补充专家小组的建议,对外束放射治疗(EBRT)、近距离放射治疗(BT,包括低剂量率(LDR)和高剂量率(HDR))以及EBRT和BT联合治疗PC的前瞻性和回顾性RPS研究进行了回顾,重点关注适应症、预期获益、已知风险和不良事件管理的见解。结果:小组讨论了关于RPS适应症和不良事件的8个关键问题,共27个小节。经过包括小组讨论会议在内的三次匿名调查迭代,对27个审查项目中的24个达成了共识。虽然专家组一致支持RPS用于外束光子放疗、质子放疗和LDR BT单药治疗,但专家组未就RPS用于HDR单药治疗或BT联合EBRT达成共识。除了涉及神经血管束(NVB)肿瘤基台的情况外,大多数情况下对RPS放置的禁忌症达成了共识。就成像指征、知情同意要素和直肠壁浸润(RWI)的处理达成共识。结论:本共识声明总结了目前RPS放置的适应症以及在PC进行最终RT治疗之前潜在不良事件的处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) rectoprostatic gel spacer consensus statement.

Purpose: This consensus statement provides recommendations based on expert opinion and best available evidence for the use of rectoprostatic gel spacers (RPS) in the setting of definitive radiation therapy (RT) for men with prostate cancer (PC) and the prevention and management of associated adverse events.

Materials and methods: The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) assembled an expert panel of 11 physicians to review key aspects of RPS in the definitive treatment of PC with RT. After multiple iterations by the panel to refine key questions and statements regarding RPS utilization in PC RT, a Delphi consensus method was employed to generate consensus statements. A review of prospective and retrospective RPS studies in the setting of external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT, including low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR)), and combinations of EBRT and BT for treatment of PC was performed to complement the expert panel's recommendations, focused on indications, expected benefits, known risks, and insights on adverse event management.

Results: A total of eight key questions with a total of 27 subsections regarding RPS indications and adverse events were addressed by the panel. Following three anonymized survey iterations which included panel discussion meetings, consensus statements were reached for 24 of the 27 reviewed items. While the panel reached consensus in support of RPS for external beam photon RT, proton RT, and LDR BT monotherapy, the panel did not reach consensus on the use of RPS for HDR monotherapy or combination BT with EBRT. Consensus was reached in most cases for contraindications to RPS placement, except for scenarios involving tumor abutment of the neurovascular bundle (NVB). Consensus was reached for imaging indications, elements of informed consent, and management of rectal wall infiltration (RWI).

Conclusions: This consensus statement summarizes the current indications for RPS placement and the management of potential adverse events prior to proceeding with definitive RT for PC.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信