Skip to main content

Rectal retractor in prostate radiotherapy: pros and cons


Dose escalation in prostate radiotherapy (RT) have led to improved biochemical controls and reduced the risk of distant metastases. Over the past three decades, despite technological advancements in RT planning and delivery, the rectum is a dose-limiting structure in prostate RT owing to the close anatomical proximity of the anterior rectal wall (ARW) to the prostate gland. RT-induced rectal toxicities remain a clinical challenge, limiting the prescribed dose during prostate RT. To address the spatial proximity challenge by physically increasing the distance between the posterior aspect of the prostate and the ARW, several physical devices such as endorectal balloons (ERBs), rectal hydrogel spacers, and rectal retractor (RR) have been developed. Previously, various aspects of ERBs and rectal hydrogel spacers have extensively been discussed. Over recent years, given the interest in the application of RR in prostate external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), this editorial will discuss opportunities and challenges of using RR during prostate EBRT and provide information regarding which aspects of this device need attention.

As demonstrated in randomized clinical trials, dose escalated/hypofractionation regimens in prostate radiotherapy (RT) have led to improved biochemical controls and reduced the risk of distant metastases [1,2,3,4]. Over the past three decades, despite technological advancements in RT planning and delivery such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), the rectum is a dose-limiting structure in prostate RT owing to the close anatomical proximity of the anterior rectal wall (ARW) to the prostate gland [5, 6]. RT-induced rectal toxicities remain a clinical challenge, limiting the prescribed dose during prostate RT. It has been demonstrated that there are dose-response relationships for long-term rectal toxicity following prostate RT. To address the spatial proximity challenge by physically increasing the distance between the posterior aspect of the prostate and the ARW, several rectal sparing devices such as endorectal balloons (ERBs), rectal hydrogel spacers, and rectal retractor (RR) have been developed [7,8,9,10,11]. Previously, various aspects of ERBs and rectal hydrogel spacers have extensively been discussed [7, 9, 10, 12]. Herein, given the interest in the application of RR in prostate external beam RT (EBRT), this editorial will discuss opportunities and challenges of using RR during prostate EBRT.

The purpose of applying RR is mainly to improve the daily reproducibility of the rectal wall (RW) position, reduce prostatic motion, and improve rectal dosimetry by pushing the posterior and lateral RW away from the high-dose region. This device decreases RW doses by physically separating the RW from the prostate, thereby resulting in a reduction in rectal toxicity rates. Several studies have already shown that using RR can significantly reduce the absolute and relative dose-volume parameters of the rectum during prostate three-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT), IMRT, proton therapy, and stereotactic body RT (SBRT), both as primary treatment and post-prostatectomy salvage RT [13,14,15,16,17]. In a comparative study, it has been found that both RR and hydrogel spacer reduce rectum V30-80% during prostate SBRT; however, RR was able to further reduce the rectal volume receiving low and intermediated doses compared to hydrogel spacer [16]. It is also important to point out that information regarding anal wall sparing effect of RR has not yet been published.

An interesting benefit of this device is that retraction of the rectum can significantly reduce the ARW doses [13, 14]. When the RR retracts the rectum, the ARW is slightly displaced from the prostate, and also the rectal retraction changes rectal shape, consequently reducing the volume of the ARW receiving high doses of radiation. It has been seen that using a RR can increase the space between the clinical target volume (CTV) and the ARW on sagittal CT images [14]. Of note, assessment of the space between the posterior borders of the CTV and the ARW on sagittal CT images only may be biased by the low resolution of the CT scan compared to MRI; however, separating ARW from the prostate at different levels (i.e. sagittal, coronal, and axial) on MRI would be of interest.

It is important to highlight the fact that the most important argument to apply RR is to eventually alleviate radiation-induced rectal toxicities. In a single-arm study, using RR during dose-escalated prostate IGRT resulted in improving acute rectal toxicity rates, and no acute grade ≥ 2 rectal toxicities during treatment were found [13]. In a comparative clinical study, Arefpour et al. compared 18 patients with and 18 patients without RR, treated with five-field 3DCRT to a total dose of 70 Gy in 35 fractions [18]. The rate of acute toxicity was similar between groups during treatment or at 3 months after RT. At 12 months, patients treated with RR experienced significantly less late grade ≥ 1 rectal toxicity, with no grade ≥ 2 toxicity. Late grade 2 rectal toxicity was experienced by 3 patients in the control group [18]. More recently, a study from Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland has reported that the use of RR does not reduce acute rectal toxicities in patients treated with conventionally fractionated RT (78/2 Gy) and moderate hypofractionated RT (60/3 Gy) [19]. Also, it has been found that patients treated with RR had more frequent rectal haemorrhages, which resulted in worse quality of life (QOL) at the end of RT [19]. Any RR acute rectal toxicity benefit may have been masked by repeated physical placement of RR daily irradiation. It is noteworthy that anal and rectal mucous become sensitive after daily irradiation, and daily retraction of the rectum intensifies the aforementioned issue and may result in rectal irritation and rectal haemorrhages. Besides, unintended small bowel or sigmoid colon irradiation with low doses may mask the impact of RR on reducing acute rectal toxicity. To date, there are no randomized trials reporting long-term rectal toxicities with RR in-place; therefore, randomized clinical studies with long-term follow up are warranted to evaluate whether the rectal dose-sparing impact of RR translates into reduced late rectal toxicities and improved QOL.

As stated earlier, applying RR pushes RW (both ARW and posterior rectal wall (PRW)) away from the CTV; therefore, it alters RW dose distribution and leads to a shift in ratio between low- and high-dose irradiated RW surface areas that may have a positive impact on mucosal regeneration [20, 21]. Moreover, retraction and stretching of the RW may have an effect on vasculature; a reduced blood volume in the rectum can cause hypoxia, which increases radioresistance of the rectum.

It is worthwhile to mention that the volume of the rectum is increased using a RR; however, the volume of the RW is constant before and after the insertion of the RR [22]. Therefore, RW delineation is essential to clear the impact of a RR on the rectal dose-volume parameters during prostate RT.

An additional potential benefit of RR is prostate-stabilizing effect. Previous studies have demonstrated the RR has a strong potential to decrease intra-fraction prostate displacement and increase inter-fraction RW position reproducibility [15, 23,24,25]. Comparative studies using various IGRT systems such as pre- and post-treatment cone-beam CT, Cine-MRI, and Kilovoltage intra-fractional monitoring have indicated that application of the RR reduces intra-fractional prostate motion compared to patients treated without RR [23,24,25]. However, the prostate immobilization effect of the RR has not confirmed by a comparative study using a single measurement point provided by RayPilot® electromagnetic real-time tracking system [26]. The most important reason for this discrepancy can be associated with various bowel preparation regimens prior to daily treatment. It is worthwhile to mention that previous studies are limited due to the restriction on motion management. The aim of the motion management, i.e. decreased radiation induced-rectal toxicity and increased efficacy by a lower target miss rate were not covered. Thus, prospective studies are expected to clarify whether the prostate immobilizing impact of RR can result in using smaller planning target volume (PTV) margins and thereby further sparing of the rectum.

There are several concerns regarding daily insertion of RR including, patient tolerability and convenience, procedure-related toxicity, and workload. At the first glance, daily application of RR can cause anal and rectal irritation and as a result, this device cannot be used throughout all treatment sessions with a conventionally fractionated RT regimen. Hence, previous clinical studies applied daily insertion of RR during the cone-down 15–20 and 10 treatment fractions in conventionally fractionated and moderate hypofractionated RT, respectively [13, 18, 19]. In a study, patients treated with conventionally fractionated IMRT (80/2 Gy) and a RR in-place experienced a mild pain according to the visual analog score [14]. The mean pain score with RR was 2.7 [14]. As reported in studies, patients experienced some discomfort associated with daily insertion of RR owing to the rectal retraction, but it was well tolerable [13, 14, 18]. In the PROMETHEUS study, it has been reported that discomfort with RR was moderate in 35% and severe in 14% of men [27]. No severe complications, i.e. severe anal irritation or rectal bleeding, have been reported with daily RR use [13, 14]. Only one study reported that 2 out of 35 patients could not tolerate the insertion of RR [16]. Several factors can potentially increase patient tolerability including, patient willingness and collaboration, staff motivation, and gradually retraction, as well as using lubricant gel or lidocaine jelly. Using RR is limited in patients with pre-existing anorectal disorders (e.g. hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and fistula) [13, 14, 18]. Daily insertion of RR into the rectum is time-consuming and requires an additional time of approximately 3–4 minutes per treatment session [13]. If RR placement is intolerable for the patient during any of the treatment fractions throughout the entire RT course, this results in a need to re-plan the radiation treatment and/or delay RT delivery, further increasing workload. It is noteworthy that the rectal rod sterilized and capped with disposable condom is first gently placed in the patient's rectum by a physician at CT-planning to ensure a proper position of RR and patient’s tolerance. In RT sessions, the insertion of RR is performed by a physician-directed healthcare professional. To increase the efficacy of the RR in retracting the rectum and the reproducibility of the RW position, patients must instruct to have a proper rectal preparation before the planning CT-scan and RT sessions.

Another potential advantage of RR is in vivo RW dosimetry with various types of dosimeters such as MOSkin detectors, GafChromic EBT3 film, and PTW-31014 Pinpoint chamber for patient-specific quality assurance [13, 25, 28]. Economically, the RR is one-off department purchase and is used for all patients; therefore it does not impose a high cost on the health care system. Additionally, the RR may potentially enable the development of RT treatment protocols investigating hypofractionation or ultra-hypofactionation regimens or hypofractionated/dose escalated RT with simultaneously integrated boost. Studies on RR in post-prostatectomy RT setting are very rare. To date, however, only one case report has studied the effect of RR on rectal dosimetry during post-operative RT, reporting promising results [17]. Further clinical studies will be required to clarify the role of RR in post-prostatectomy RT. RR as a rectal sparing device can also be incorporated with prostate re-irradiation. Clinical studies are awaited to evaluate the feasibility of the application of RR in prostate re-irradiation.

It is interesting to address pros and cons other rectal sparing devices, i.e., ERBs and rectal hydrogel spacers, to compare various aspects associated with each technology. An old rectal sparing device is ERB insertion, a minimally invasive method for decreasing anorectal radiation doses during prostate RT. The deflated ERB is inserted into the rectum and then inflated with air or water, resulting in increasing the distance of PRW from the high-dose regions. Although utilizing an ERB can reduce the PRW doses, it increases the ARW volume receiving high doses of radiation because pushes the ARW toward the prostate. The most important benefit of ERB technique is that it significantly restricts intra-fraction prostate motion [8]. However, day-to-day reproducibility of ERB position is challenging, and variations in ERB placement depth can cause prostate deformation that consequently affects dosimetric outcomes [8, 11]. Moreover, repeated insertion of ERB may cause adverse rectal tissue reaction and anorectal irritation on patients owing to direct contact with the rectal mucosa. Hence, the insertion of ERB into the rectum is facilitated using lidocaine ointment and lubricant jelly. The placement of ERB is well tolerated without severe complications; however, some patients do not tolerate ERB insertion throughout the entire course of RT [11]. The insertion of ERB is contraindicated in patients with pre-existing anorectal diseases. Daily insertion of ERB into the rectum is time-consuming and adds approximately 3 min additional time to routine treatment setup [11]. The use of ERB can also provide the opportunity for in vivo dosimetry for rectal dose verification during prostate RT [29]. In post-prostatectomy RT setting, using ERB cannot significantly reduce anorectal doses because the inflated ERB pushes ARW toward the prostate bed owing to missing counterfort of the prostate gland in this scenario [11]. It is important to mention that daily insertion of ERB is performed under uniform guidelines. A daily disposable ERB should be applied for hygiene reasons. From an economic point of view, one ERB can be used per patient throughout the entire course of prostate RT with the use of a disposable condom in each fraction.

More recently, an innovative strategy, SpaceOAR hydrogel, has been introduced in clinical practice with the intent to decrease RT-induced rectal toxicity during prostate RT [7, 8, 11]. The hydrogel is injected between the Denonvilliers’ fascia and the rectum about one week prior to RT to separate the ARW from the prostate and consequently reduce the radiation dose delivered to the ARW. Using SpaceOAR hydrogel significantly increases the prostate-rectum separation, a mean separation of approximately 10 mm, which results in significantly reduced rectal volumes irradiated to high doses [7]. Disadvantage of this method is associated with the invasive implantation procedures that can cause some complications. Hydrogel is injected under general or local anaesthetic via a transperineal approach with transrectal ultrasound guidance [7, 11]. The injection of SpaceOAR hydrogel is time-limited because it polymerized at few second; therefore in situ positioning correction of the hydrogel is not usually possible [11]. The injection of hydrogel spacer is safe. However, rarely, some complications following SpaceOAR hydrogel implantation have been observed including, severe anaphylaxis, acute pulmonary embolism, prostatic or perineal abscess and sepsis, rectal wall erosion, rectal ulceration and fistula, and recto-urethral fistula [7, 11]. In contrast to RR and ERB, there is a growing body of evidence that supports the application of SpaceOAR hydrogel during prostate brachytherapy with promising results [7]. The injection of SpaceOAR hydrogel does not serve as a stabilizing device for prostate motion [8]. Regarding post-prostatectomy RT, the benefit of the implantation of hydrogel spacer is controversial [30]. However, Pinkawa et al. proposed that this approach can be used for specifically selected cases [31]. There are concerns regarding the cost-effectiveness of the routine use of SpaceOAR hydrogel [11, 32]. The cost of SpaceOAR hydrogel is approximately 1500 € (expressed in euros (€)) [32]. It has been reported that the routine SpaceOAR use is not cost-effective [32]. Further studies are awaited to confirm the cost-effectiveness of this approach to elucidate which subset of prostate patients would benefit from the implantation of hydrogel to decrease rectal toxicities in a cost-effective manner.

A growing body of literature supports that the use of SpaceOAR hydrogel meaningfully and significantly decrease both the rectal doses and the long-term RT-induced rectal toxicities during prostate IMRT, SBRT and proton therapy [33,34,35]. Most existing literatures on RR focus on the dosimetric effects, but data on patient- and physician-reported toxicities with the use of RR are scarce. Regarding the role of RR in prostate proton therapy and hypofractionated protocols, more data are awaited to confirm the efficacy of this approach to reduce long-term rectal toxicities. The ERB was introduced early in the 3D era without image-guidance and the dosimetric advantages of this method have clearly been indicated by 3DCRT; however, improved rectal dosimetry with ERB was not always reproduced with the advent of intensity-modulated techniques with imaging guidance [36]. Also, using ERB significantly increased the volume of the RW receiving high radiation doses during prostate SBRT [37]. Regarding ERBs, there is no level 1 evidence to support their utility in decreasing RT-induced rectal toxicity or high doses to the ARW [38].

Interestingly, many patients with prostate cancer are cured with both surgery and RT and, even without rectal sparing devices; a very low rate of adverse events requiring intervention has been reported. Therefore, any recommendation to implement these devices in routine clinical practice requires careful consideration of the need and evidence of toxicity and clinical benefits of rectal sparing devices.

In summary, using RR may represent a new horizon for prostate EBRT delivery. This device along with state of the art RT delivery techniques can be a game changer in prostate cancer. Although clinical experience with this device is scant but prostate RT treatments with RR in-place seem feasible and tolerable to patients. Therefore, collection of clinical evidence in well-designed clinical trials is warranted to fully explore the true potential clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of this innovative technology. It is also interesting to evaluate whether various rectal sparing devices have the same clinical benefits in the era of modern EBRT for prostate cancer.

Availability of data and materials

No data generated.





Intensity-modulated radiotherapy


Image-guided radiotherapy


Anterior rectal wall


Endorectal balloon


Rectal retractor


External beam radiotherapy


Rectal wall


Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy


Stereotactic body radiotherapy


Clinical target volume


Quality of life


Posterior rectal wall


Planning target volume


  1. Spratt DE, Pei X, Yamada J, Kollmeier MA, Cox B, Zelefsky MJ. Long-term survival and toxicity in patients treated with high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:686–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, Starkschall G, Huang EH, Cheung MR, et al. Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I, Khoo V, Cowan RA, Graham JD, et al. Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:464–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Fuks Z, Zhang Z, Hunt M, Cahlon O, et al. Long-term results of conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: impact of dose escalation on biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:1028–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Shippy AM, Jackson A, et al. Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:1124–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Michalski JM, Yan Y, Watkins-Bruner D, Bosch WR, Winter K, Galvin JM, et al. Preliminary toxicity analysis of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 prostate cancer trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:932–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Afkhami Ardekani M, Ghaffari H. Optimization of prostate brachytherapy techniques with polyethylene glycol-based hydrogel spacers: a systematic review. Brachytherapy. 2020;19:13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Afkhami Ardekani M, Ghaffari H, Navaser M, Zoljalali Moghaddam SH, Refahi S. Effectiveness of rectal displacement devices in managing prostate motion: a systematic review. Strahlenther Onkol. 2021;197:97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Babar M, Katz A, Ciatto M. Dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021;65:384–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smeenk RJ, Teh BS, Butler EB, van Lin EN, Kaanders JH. Is there a role for endorectal balloons in prostate radiotherapy? A systematic review. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:277–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sanei M, Ghaffari H, Ardekani MA, Mahdavi SR, Mofid B, Abdollahi H, et al. Effectiveness of rectal displacement devices during prostate external-beam radiation therapy: a review. J Cancer Res Ther. 2021;17:303–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hall WA, Tree AC, Dearnaley D, Parker CC, Prasad V, Roach III M . Considering benefit and risk before routinely recommending SpaceOAR. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:11–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahdavi SR, Ghaffari H, Mofid B, Rostami A, Reiazi R, Janani L. Rectal retractor application during image-guided dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol. 2019;195:923–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghaffari H, Rostami A, Ardekani MA, Mofid B, Mahdavi SR. Rectal wall sparing effect of a rectal retractor in prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther. 2021;17:383–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Isacsson U, Nilsson K, Asplund S, Morhed E, Montelius A, Turesson I. A method to separate the rectum from the prostate during proton beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:500–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilton L, Richardson M, Keats S, Legge K, Hanlon MC, Arumugam S, et al. Rectal protection in prostate stereotactic radiotherapy: a retrospective exploratory analysis of two rectal displacement devices. J Med Radiat Sci. 2017;64:266–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghaffari H, Afkhami Ardekani M, Molana SH, Haghparast M, Sanei M, Mahdavi SR, et al. Application of rectal retractor for postprostatectomy salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer: a case report and literature review. Clin Case Rep. 2019;7:2102–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Arefpour AM, Abbasi M, Rabi Mahdavi S, Shafieesabet M, Fadavi P. Clinical effects of rectal retractor application in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2021;35:69.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Reinikainen P, Kapanen M, Luukkaala T, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL. Acute side-effects of different radiotherapy treatment schedules in early prostate cancer. Anticancer Res. 2022;42:2553–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Skwarchuk MW, Jackson A, Zelefsky MJ, Venkatraman ES, Cowen DM, Levegrün S, et al. Late rectal toxicity after conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer (I): multivariate analysis and dose-response. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:103–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Skwarchuk MW, Travis EL. Volume effects and epithelial regeneration in irradiated mouse colorectum. Radiat Res. 1998;149:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghaffari H. Rectal wall delineation in patients with a rectal displacement device in place during prostate cancer radiotherapy. J Radiat Oncol. 2019;8:103–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. de Leon J, Jameson MG, Rivest-Henault D, Keats S, Rai R, Arumugam S, et al. Reduced motion and improved rectal dosimetry through endorectal immobilization for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2019;92:20190056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Legge K, Nguyen D, Ng JA, Wilton L, Richardson M, Booth J, et al. Real-time intrafraction prostate motion during linac based stereotactic radiotherapy with rectal displacement. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:130–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nicolae A, Davidson M, Easton H, Helou J, Musunuru H, Loblaw A, et al. Clinical evaluation of an endorectal immobilization system for use in prostate hypofractionated stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR). Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vanhanen A, Kapanen M. The effect of rectal retractor on intrafraction motion of the prostate. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2016;2:035021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pryor D, Sidhom M, Arumugam S, Bucci J, Gallagher S, Smart J, et al. Phase 2 Multicenter Study of Gantry-Based Stereotactic Radiotherapy Boost for Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer (PROMETHEUS). Front Oncol. 2019;9:217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Legge K, Greer PB, O'Connor DJ, Wilton L, Richardson M, Hunter P, et al. Real-time in vivo rectal wall dosimetry using MOSkin detectors during linac based stereotactic radiotherapy with rectal displacement. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsi WC, Fagundes M, Zeidan O, Hug E, Schreuder N. Image-guided method for TLD-based in vivo rectal dose verification with endorectal balloon in proton therapy for prostate cancer. Med Phys. 2013;40:051715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghaffari H. Is there a role for hydrogel spacer in post-prostatectomy radiotherapy setting? Radiol Med. 2019;124:1062–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pinkawa M, Schubert C, Escobar-Corral N, Holy R, Eble MJ. Application of a hydrogel spacer for postoperative salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 2015;191:375–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Giuliani J, Fiorica F. Cost-effectivess of SpaceOAR system during prostate cancer radiation therapy: really helpful or excess of expectations? Brachytherapy. 2021;20:1341–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hamstra DA, Mariados N, Sylvester J, Shah D, Karsh L, Hudes R, et al. Continued benefit to rectal separation for prostate radiation therapy: final results of a phase III trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:976–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Payne HA, Pinkawa M, Peedell C, Bhattacharyya SK, Woodward E, Miller LE. SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer injection prior to stereotactic body radiation therapy for men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review. Medicine. 2021;100:e28111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Thompson AB, Hamstra DA. Rectal spacer usage with proton radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108:644–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Serrano NA, Kalman NS, Anscher MS. Reducing rectal injury in men receiving prostate cancer radiation therapy: current perspectives. Cancer Manag Res. 2017;9:339–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wong AT, Schreiber D, Agarwal M, Polubarov A, Schwartz D. Impact of the use of an endorectal balloon on rectal dosimetry during stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:262–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wortel RC, Heemsbergen WD, Smeenk RJ, Witte MG, Krol SDG, Pos FJ, et al. Local protocol variations for image guided radiation therapy in the multicenter dutch hypofractionation (HYPRO) Trial: impact of rectal balloon and MRI delineation on anorectal dose and gastrointestinal toxicity levels. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99:1243–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references




Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



HGh: Conceptualization, writing original draft, supervision, writing review and editing. AM: Writing original draft, writing review and editing. All authors read and approved the final letter.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamed Ghaffari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not required, this article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

Not required, no patient data/ information Involved.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghaffari, H., Mehrabian, A. Rectal retractor in prostate radiotherapy: pros and cons. Radiat Oncol 17, 204 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: