Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 95, Issue 3 , Pages 277-282, June 2010

Is there a role for endorectal balloons in prostate radiotherapy? A systematic review

  • Robert Jan Smeenk

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • ,
  • Bin S. Teh

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, The Methodist Hospital and The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • ,
  • E. Brian Butler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, The Methodist Hospital and The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • ,
  • Emile N.J.Th. van Lin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Johannes H.A.M. Kaanders

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Received 16 June 2009; received in revised form 21 January 2010; accepted 7 April 2010. published online 07 May 2010.

Abstract 

Background and purpose

Endorectal balloons (ERBs) are being used in prostate radiotherapy for prostate immobilization and rectal wall (Rwall) sparing. Some of their aspects, however, have been questioned, like patient’s tolerance and their value in modern high-precision radiotherapy. This paper gives an overview of published data concerning ERB application in prostate radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Systematic literature review based on PubMed/MEDLINE database searches.

Results

Overall, ERBs are tolerated well, although patients with pre-existing anorectal disease have an increased risk of developing ERB-related toxicity. Planning studies show reduced Rwall and anal wall (Awall) doses with ERB application. Clinical data, however, are scarce, as only one study shows reduced late rectal damage. There is no consensus about the immobilizing properties of ERBs and it is recommended to use additional set-up and correction protocols, especially because there are potential pitfalls.

Conclusion

ERBs seem well-tolerated and in planning studies reduce anorectal wall doses. This may lead to reduced anorectal toxicity, although clinical studies are warranted to confirm this hypothesis and to further investigate the immobilizing properties of ERBs, preferably in combination with advanced techniques for position verification.

Keywords: Endorectal balloon, Prostate cancer, Radiotherapy, Rectal wall sparing, Anorectal toxicity

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0167-8140(10)00242-2

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2010.04.016

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 95, Issue 3 , Pages 277-282, June 2010