Scholarlink

Background <p>To compare the geometric consistency, dosimetric performance, and early clinical outcomes of the BioProtect balloon spacer versus the Barrigel hydrogel spacer in patients receiving proton therapy for prostate cancer.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective study analyzed 50 prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy: 25 with BioProtect and 25 with Barrigel. Anatomical displacement, rectal dose (V70/V60/V50), rectal wall infiltration (RWI), and early gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were assessed. Two treatment plans per patient (prostate-only and whole-pelvis) were generated using identical optimization workflows. Geometric and dosimetric comparisons were performed using t-tests, and correlations between anatomy and dose were evaluated.</p> Results <p>BioProtect achieved greater midgland (18.28&#xa0;mm vs. 14.52&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) and apical (12.8&#xa0;mm vs. 8.3&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) separation. Prostate-only plans with BioProtect showed significantly lower rectal V60 (2.02% vs. 6.69%) and V50 (4.28% vs. 10.16%) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Whole-pelvis plans showed V70/V60/V50 reductions of 72.8%, 66.1%, and 66.7%, respectively (all <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). No RWI events occurred in the BioProtect arm, compared to three with Barrigel. Acute grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed in 0% of BioProtect vs. 17.4% of Barrigel patients at 3 months.</p> Conclusion <p>BioProtect demonstrated superior and more consistent rectal sparing in proton therapy compared to Barrigel. The fixed geometry balloon design yielded enhanced separation, reduced rectal dose, and fewer early GI toxicities. These findings suggest an dosimetric and clinical advantage of BioProtect in the proton therapy setting.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comprehensive comparison of Bioprotect balloon and Barrigel hydrogel rectal spacers in proton therapy for prostate cancer

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月11日

查看全文
  • Joey Arnold

摘要

Background

To compare the geometric consistency, dosimetric performance, and early clinical outcomes of the BioProtect balloon spacer versus the Barrigel hydrogel spacer in patients receiving proton therapy for prostate cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed 50 prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy: 25 with BioProtect and 25 with Barrigel. Anatomical displacement, rectal dose (V70/V60/V50), rectal wall infiltration (RWI), and early gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were assessed. Two treatment plans per patient (prostate-only and whole-pelvis) were generated using identical optimization workflows. Geometric and dosimetric comparisons were performed using t-tests, and correlations between anatomy and dose were evaluated.

Results

BioProtect achieved greater midgland (18.28 mm vs. 14.52 mm, p < 0.01) and apical (12.8 mm vs. 8.3 mm, p < 0.001) separation. Prostate-only plans with BioProtect showed significantly lower rectal V60 (2.02% vs. 6.69%) and V50 (4.28% vs. 10.16%) (p < 0.01). Whole-pelvis plans showed V70/V60/V50 reductions of 72.8%, 66.1%, and 66.7%, respectively (all p < 0.01). No RWI events occurred in the BioProtect arm, compared to three with Barrigel. Acute grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed in 0% of BioProtect vs. 17.4% of Barrigel patients at 3 months.

Conclusion

BioProtect demonstrated superior and more consistent rectal sparing in proton therapy compared to Barrigel. The fixed geometry balloon design yielded enhanced separation, reduced rectal dose, and fewer early GI toxicities. These findings suggest an dosimetric and clinical advantage of BioProtect in the proton therapy setting.