The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Roach, M., Hanks, G., Thames, H., Schellhammer, P., Shipley, W. U., Sokol, G. H., & Sandler, H. (2006) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029 · Cited by 2,749
10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
Hamdy, F. C., Donovan, J. L., Lane, J. A., Mason, M., Metcalfe, C., Holding, P., Davis, M., Peters, T. J., Turner, E. L., Martin, R. M., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1606220 · Cited by 2,640
Dearnaley, D., Syndikus, I., Mossop, H., Khoo, V., Birtle, A., Bloomfield, D., Graham, J., Kirkbride, P., Logue, J., Malik, Z., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30102-4 · Cited by 1,339
Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial
Pollack, A., Zagars, G. K., Starkschall, G., Antolak, J. A., Lee, J. J., Huang, E., von Eschenbach, A. C., Kuban, D. A., & Rosen, I. (2002) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02829-8 · Cited by 1,333
Widmark, A., Klepp, O., Solberg, A., Damber, J.-E., Angelsen, A., Fransson, P., Lund, J.-Å., Tasdemir, I., Hoyer, M., Wiklund, F., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61815-2 · Cited by 876
Dearnaley, D. P., Khoo, V. S., Norman, A. R., Meyer, L., Nahum, A., Tait, D., Yarnold, J., & Horwich, A. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)05180-0 · Cited by 739
Zelefsky, M. J., Levin, E. J., Hunt, M., Yamada, Y., Shippy, A. M., Jackson, A., & Amols, H. I. (2008) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.044 · Cited by 735
Lee, W. R., Dignam, J. J., Amin, M. B., Bruner, D. W., Low, D., Swanson, G. P., Shah, A. B., D’Souza, D. P., Michalski, J. M., Dayes, I. S., et al. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.67.0448 · Cited by 625
Self-citationWarde, P., Mason, M., Ding, K., Kirkbride, P., Brundage, M., Cowan, R., Gospodarowicz, M., Sanders, K., Kostashuk, E., Swanson, G., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61095-7 · Cited by 579
King, C. R., Freeman, D. E., Kaplan, I., et al. (2013) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.030 · Cited by 456
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamstra, D. A., Mariados, N., Sylvester, J., Shah, D., Karsh, L., Hudes, R., Beyer, D., Kurtzman, S., Bogart, J., Hsi, R. A., Kos, M., Ellis, R., Logsdon, M., Zimberg, S., Forsythe, K., Zhang, H., Soffen, E., Francke, P., Mantz, C., Rossi, P., DeWeese, T., Daignault-Newton, S., Fischer-Valuck, B. W., Chundury, A., Gay, H., Bosch, W., & Michalski, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 976-985
- ISSN
- 0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2592338623
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 25.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.024
- The paper
- Hamstra, D. A., Mariados, N., Sylvester, J., Shah, D., Karsh, L., Hudes, R., Beyer, D., Kurtzman, S., Bogart, J., Hsi, R. A., Kos, M., Ellis, R., Logsdon, M., Zimberg, S., Forsythe, K., Zhang, H., Soffen, E., Francke, P., Mantz, C., . . . Michalski, J. (2017). Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.024
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.