Postimplant dosimetry for (125)I prostate implants: definitions and factors affecting outcome.

Abstract Objective: An analysis of CT-based dosimetry was performed to assess the efficacy of the real time method of prostate implantation, explore the relationship of various dose descriptions and determine implant factors affecting outcome. Methods and Materials: Between 7/95 and 8/99, 297 patients underwent 125 I implants for T1–T2 prostate cancer and had CT-based dosimetry performed (TG43 formalism). Dosimetry was performed 1 month postimplant. Using a dose–volume histogram, doses delivered to 100%, 95%, 90%, and 80% of the prostate (D100, D95, D90, D80, respectively) as well as percentages of the gland receiving 240 Gy, 160 Gy, 140 Gy (V240, V160, V140, respectively) were reported. Correlations between the various dose parameters and D90 were generated. The effect of the number of seeds implanted, seeds/volume, prostate volume, experience as assessed by time (8/01/99—date of implant), ultrasound probe (mechanical sector vs. dual phased electronic), and the ratio of the CT dosimetry prostate volume/ultrasound implant volume (CT/US vol) were analyzed. Results: The median D100, D95, D90, and D80 values were 10,200 cGy, 15,655 cGy, 17,578 cGy, and 19,873 cGy, respectively. The median V240, V160, and V140 were 56%, 94%, and 98%, respectively. Correlations of dose descriptions found a close relationship of D95, D80, V240, V160, and V140 with D90 with r values of 0.928, 0.973, 0.911, 0.816, and 0.733, respectively. D100 correlated poorly with D90 ( r = 0.099). Using a stepwise regression analysis, CT/US vol ratio, prostate volume, and seed number were the only significant factors affecting D90 with CT/US vol ratio having the greatest effect. The dual-phased electronic probe was associated with fewer D90 values of less than 140 Gy (2%) compared to the mechanical sector probe (14%) ( p = 0.02). Conclusion: CT-based dosimetry results reveal the real-time implant technique to be an effective method of prostate implantation. Factors associated with more precise implantation, such as decreased postimplant edema, new technology, and increased number of seeds will lead to higher D90 values.

[1]  B W Corn,et al.  A dynamic model for the estimation of optimum timing of computed tomography scan for dose evaluation of 125I or 103Pd seed implant of prostate. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  J J Prete,et al.  Centralized multiinstitutional postimplant analysis for interstitial prostate brachytherapy. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  N. Yue,et al.  Edema associated with I-125 or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy and its impact on post-implant dosimetry: an analysis based on serial CT acquisition. , 1998, International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

[4]  P L Roberson,et al.  Optimal placement of radioisotopes for permanent prostate implants. , 1996, Radiology.

[5]  P. Grimm,et al.  A survey of current clinical practice of permanent prostate brachytherapy in the United States. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  J J Prete,et al.  Timing of computed tomography-based postimplant assessment following permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  J. Roy,et al.  Dosimetry guidelines to minimize urethral and rectal morbidity following transperineal I-125 prostate brachytherapy. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  L. Anderson,et al.  Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43 , 1995 .

[9]  P. Roberson,et al.  Source placement error for permanent implant of the prostate. , 1997, Medical physics.

[10]  R. Stock,et al.  Prostate brachytherapy: Improvements in prostate volume measurements and dose distribution using interactive ultrasound guided implantation and three-dimensional dosimetry , 1995 .

[11]  R. Stock,et al.  A dose-response study for I-125 prostate implants. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  P L Roberson,et al.  Impact of ultrasound and computed tomography prostate volume registration on evaluation of permanent prostate implants. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  W Cavanagh,et al.  Comparability of CT-based and TRUS-based prostate volumes. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  F M Waterman,et al.  Limitations of the minimum peripheral dose as a parameter for dose specification in permanent 125I prostate implants. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  W. Butler,et al.  Potential role of various dosimetric quality indicators in prostate brachytherapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  S Nag,et al.  The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetric analysis. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  K. Wallner,et al.  CT-based dosimetry for transperineal I-125 prostate brachytherapy. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  Julie Dawson,et al.  Dose effects of seeds placement deviations from pre-planned positions in ultrasound guided prostate implants , 1994 .

[19]  P. Unger,et al.  Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection combined with real-time interactive transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal radioactive seed implantation of the prostate. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[20]  W. Butler,et al.  Rectal dosimetric analysis following prostate brachytherapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  R Nath,et al.  Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64. , 1999, Medical physics.

[22]  R. Stock,et al.  A modified technique allowing interactive ultrasound-guided three-dimensional transperineal prostate implantation. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  W. P. Dixon,et al.  BMPD statistical software manual , 1988 .