Assessment of i-125 prostate implants by tumor bioeffect.

PURPOSE A method of prostate implant dose distribution assessment using a bioeffect model that incorporates a distribution of tumor cell densities is demonstrated. This method provides both a quantitative method of describing implant quality and spatial information related to the location of underdosed regions of the prostate. This model, unlike any other, takes into account the likelihood of finding cancer cells in the underdosed region. METHODS AND MATERIAL The prostate volumes of 5 patients were divided into multiple subsections and a unique cell density was assigned to each subsection. The assigned cell density was a function of probability of finding tumor foci in that subsection. The tumor control probability (TCP) for each subsection was then calculated to identify the location of any significantly underdosed part of the prostate. In addition, a single TCP value for the entire prostate was calculated to score the overall quality of the implant. RESULTS Adequately dosed subsections scored TCP values greater than 0.80. The TCP for underdosed regions fell dramatically particularly in subsections at higher risk of containing tumor cells. CONCLUSIONS Despite uncertainties in radiobiological parameters used to calculate the TCP and the distribution of cancer foci through the prostate, the bioeffect model was found to be useful in identifying regions of underdosed prostate that may be at risk of local recurrence due to inadequate dose. Unlike the isodose distribution, the model has the potential to demonstrate that small volumes of tissue underdosed in regions most likely to contain higher numbers of tumor cells may be more significant than larger volumes irradiated to a lower dose but with a lower probability of containing cancer cells.

[1]  J. Fowler,et al.  How low is the α/β ratio for prostate cancer? in regard to Wang et al., IJROBP 2003;55:194–203 , 2003 .

[2]  C Busch,et al.  Modeling prostate cancer distributions. , 1999, Urology.

[3]  J. Battista,et al.  The influence of brachytherapy dose heterogeneity on estimates of α/β for prostate cancer , 2003 .

[4]  Michael J. Zelefsky,et al.  Comparison of the 5-Year Outcome and Morbidity of Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy Versus Transperineal Permanent Iodine-125 Implantation for Early-Stage Prostatic Cancer , 1999 .

[5]  C C Ling,et al.  Fitting tumor control probability models to biopsy outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer: pitfalls in deducing radiobiologic parameters for tumors from clinical data. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  A. Nahum,et al.  Incorporating clinical measurements of hypoxia into tumor local control modeling of prostate cancer: Implications for the α/β ratio , 2003 .

[7]  W S Bice,et al.  Sector analysis of prostate implants. , 2001, Medical physics.

[8]  S. Zavgorodni,et al.  Modeling dose response in the presence of spatial variations in dose rate. , 2000, Medical physics.

[9]  D J Brenner,et al.  Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  A. Nahum,et al.  The delta-TCP concept: a clinically useful measure of tumor control probability. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  Warren D. D'Souza,et al.  Is the α/β ratio for prostate cancer low? , 2001 .

[12]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Defining the implant treatment volume for patients with low risk prostate cancer: does the anterior base need to be treated? , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Duchesne Gm,et al.  What is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer? Rationale for hypofractionated high-dose-rate brachytherapy. , 1999 .

[14]  D. Johnston,et al.  Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci , 2000, Cancer.

[15]  K. Otto,et al.  Prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetry: a comparison of prostate quadrants. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  R G Dale,et al.  Dose-rate effects in targeted radiotherapy. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[18]  T. Stamey,et al.  Zonal Distribution of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Correlation with Histologic Pattern and Direction of Spread , 1988, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

[20]  Jian Z. Wang,et al.  Low α/β ratio for prostate cancer: in response to Dr. Fowler et al. , 2003 .

[21]  X. Allen Li,et al.  HOW LOW IS THE / RATIO FOR PROSTATE CANCER? , 2003 .

[22]  Blasko,et al.  10-year biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) control of prostate cancer with (125)I brachytherapy. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  C. Mayo,et al.  Is the prostate α/β ratio of 1.5 from Brenner & Hall a modeling artifact?1 , 2000 .

[24]  D. Brenner,et al.  Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low α/β ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue , 2002 .

[25]  S Webb,et al.  A model for calculating tumour control probability in radiotherapy including the effects of inhomogeneous distributions of dose and clonogenic cell density. , 1993, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  J. Fowler,et al.  A simple analytic derivation suggests that prostate cancer α/β ratio is low , 2001 .

[27]  Rick Chappell,et al.  Is α/β for prostate tumors really low? , 2001 .