Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences · September 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
ABSTRACT Introduction Hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for localised prostate cancer may increase gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. This study evaluated spacer geometry, dosimetric and clinical outcomes associated with the use of a stabilised hyaluronic acid (sHA)‐based rectal spacer, when inserted prior to HFRT, compared to a non‐spacer cohort. Method This was a retrospective comparative cohort study of patients receiving HFRT (60 Gy in 20 fractions) between July 2019 and December 2023 at two centres from a single institution. Prostate‐rectum spacing was measured at apex, mid‐gland, and base levels at simulation as baseline and on five cone beam CT scans during treatment. Rectal dose‐volume metrics and planning target volume (PTV) coverage were compared. Toxicities were retrospectively graded using CTCAE Version 5.0 for participants with a minimum follow‐up of 3 months. Results Ninety‐one patients were included in this study; 64 with sHA‐based spacers and 27 without spacing. The mean baseline spacing was 0.8, 1.0 and 0.9 cm at apex, mid‐gland and base, respectively, and this separation remained stable throughout treatment. The spacer cohort demonstrated significantly lower rectal doses across all metrics except V60Gy and achieved slightly higher PTV coverage (D98%: 57.8 vs. 57.3 Gy, p < 0.001). Acute GI toxicity (grade ≥ 1) was lower in the spacer cohort (23.5% vs. 48.0%; OR = 0.33, p = 0.05), with grade ≥ 2 toxicity in 2.9% versus 20.0%. Genitourinary toxicity rates were comparable between cohorts. No complications associated with spacer insertion were recorded. Conclusions sHA ‐based rectal spacers provided physically stable spacing throughout treatment, facilitating significant reductions in rectal dose and a favourable toxicity profile. This study adds further evidence to support the use of sHA‐based spacers in prostate HFRT.