Evidence Hub

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Pivotal Trial of Biodegradable Balloon Rectal Spacer for Prostate Radiation Therapy

Daniel Song, M. Dabkowski, Paulo Costa, R. Nurani, M. Kos, B. Vanneste, David Magel, E. Sapir et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2024

222 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Rectal spacers have been shown to reduce rectal side effects in patients receiving prostate radiation. However, concerns remain regarding precise and reproducible gel injection. We evaluated efficacy and safety of a novel rectoprostatic spacer balloon which allows potential for controlled, adaptable deployment. This study tested co-primary hypotheses: 1) Balloon spacer would result in ≥ 25% reduction of rectal V70 in > 75% of subjects, and 2) Implantation procedure-related and rectal ≥ Grade 1 adverse events within 6 months (duration ≥ 2 days, CTCAE 4.0) would be non-inferior in balloon vs control subjects.

MATERIALS/METHODS

222 subjects were enrolled at 16 centers. All patients had T1-T3 prostate cancer without MRI evidence of posterior extraprostatic invasion. Randomization was 2:1 (balloon: control) and subject-blinded. Patients underwent transperineal TRUS-guided fiducial placement +/- balloon, followed by IMRT (81 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions or biologically equivalent hypofractionated dose). For efficacy comparisons, plans were generated by a central core lab on pre- and post-implant CT scans.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was met, with 97.9% of balloon subjects (139/142) having rectal V70 reduction >25% (p<0.001). Mean V70 was 7.0 % pre- vs 1.1% post- implant. The primary safety endpoint was met with balloon subjects experiencing fewer ≥ Grade 1 events, 18% vs 23% (p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). On pre-defined secondary endpoint of ≥ Grade 2…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 222 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free