The Use of HA as Rectal Spacer in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Hypofractionated RT: An Australian Experience

Purpose/Objective(s)

To report the feasibility, post-operative complications and recto-prostatic separation achieved with hyaluronic acid (HA) inserted into the perirectal fat before definitive prostate radiotherapy (RT).

Materials/Methods

Fifty-seven patients with clinical stage T1-3 prostate cancer underwent transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal insertion of fiducial markers and HA into the perirectal space before volumetric arc RT between 7/2020 to 7/2021. Post insertion computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were obtained for treatment planning. HA feasibility, safety and recto-prostatic separation were assessed. The prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) ranged from 60-62Gy in 20 fractions.

Results

The mean age was 74.7 years. The median PSA was 8.1 [Interquartile range (IQR)6.2-10.0]. The majority of patients had ISUP 2 adenocarcinoma (60%). The rest had ISUP 1 (11%) and ISUP 3 (30%). The disease risk was staged as early in 11%, favorable intermediate in 30%, unfavorable intermediate in 58% and high in 2%. Androgen deprivation therapy was delivered in 63%. HA insertion was completed with a 100% success rate. This was rated as ‘easy' to ‘very easy' 100% of the time. There were no device related complications, rectal perforation, serious bleeding, infections or allergic reactions. The mean prostate size was 43cc (IQR 30-55cc). Recto-prostatic separation at the base (measured 5mm below the prostate base), mid gland and apex (measured 5mm above the prostate apex) were 12mm (0.2), 11mm (0.2) and 0.9mm (0.1) respectively. The HA was also symmetrically placed in breadth at the mid gland in all patients. The mean rectal volume receiving 53Gy (rV53) was 3.2% (IQR 1.3-5.5) for patients receiving 60-62Gy. The median follow up was 13.5 months (IQR 9.5-17.5). The risk of any acute GU toxicity was 81%. The majority had grade 1 GU toxicity at 67% with urinary frequency, urgency and obstruction being the commonest reported side effects. The risk of any grade 2 GU toxicity was 14% with urinary obstruction (13%) and urgency (7%). The risk of any acute GI toxicity was 2%. Only 1 patient developed grade 1 GI toxicity with diarrhea. The risk of any late GU toxicity was 43%. The majority had grade 1 GU toxicity at 32% with urinary frequency, urgency and obstruction. The risk of any grade 2 GU toxicity was 11% with urinary obstruction (5%), urgency (5%) and incontinence (2%). The risk of any late GI toxicity was 2%. Only 1 patient had grade 1 GI toxicity with diarrhea.

Conclusion

HA was successfully inserted in all patients and was well tolerated. Recto-prostatic separation was symmetrical in length from the base to the apex and in breadth at the midgland. The risk of developing any acute GI toxicity was minimal at 2% with the use of HA. In addition, the risk of late GI toxicity was 2%, albeit with short follow up.