Patients with a Short Distance Between the Prostate and the Rectum Are Appropriate Candidates for Hydrogel Spacer Placement to Prevent Short-Term Rectal Hemorrhage After External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation therapy, including external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy, is curative for localized prostate cancer. Hydrogel spacer (HS) placement between the rectum and prostate is popular for reducing radiation-related complications. Criteria to identify patients who benefit from HS placement would be clinically valuable. In a retrospective analysis of 430 patients with localized prostate cancer treated between November 2010 and March 2023 with ≥2 years of follow-up, we evaluated the incidence of rectal hemorrhage and its association with the median distance at the midpoint between the prostate and the rectum (mDPR) on pretreatment MRI. Rectal hemorrhage occurred in 6% of HS cases and 18% of non-HS cases (p < 0.001). Among 268 patients who received EBRT (±brachytherapy), the incidence was 9% with HS and 30% without HS (p < 0.001). In non-HS cases, the rate in patients with mDPR ≤ 1.62 mm was higher than in those with mDPR > 1.62 mm (24% vs. 12%, respectively; p = 0.04). In patients with EBRT and mDPR ≤ 1.62 mm, HS significantly reduced hemorrhage (9% vs. 39%, respectively; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified mDPR and HS as independent predictors of rectal hemorrhage (both p = 0.02). Thus, HS placement may be safely omitted in non-EBRT cases with mDPR ≥ 1.62 mm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".