CT-ultrasound fusion prostate brachytherapy: a dynamic dosimetry feedback and improvement method. A report of 54 consecutive cases.

PURPOSE The authors describe a prostate brachytherapy technique with dynamic dosimetry feedback, using coregistered CT and ultrasound (US) images, to map initial dosimetry deficiencies and guide remedial source placement. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fifty-four consecutive patients treated with this method were analyzed for coregistration accuracy and dosimetry outcomes by evaluating the prostate V100, V150, D90, and urethral D50 and D10. Dosimetric improvements created by remedial source placement and preplan/postplan prostate D90 agreement were evaluated. RESULTS Median CT-US coregistration discrepancy with this technique ranged from 0 to 4mm, with the posterior midline prostate and base prostate providing the least consistent and the urethra providing the most consistent coregistration agreement. Final prostate V100 values ranged from 96.1% to 99.8% for all patients. The addition of remedial sources directed by CT-US fusion produced V100 and D90 improvements whose magnitude inversely correlated with the initial result and exceeded the effect of adding quantitatively identical randomly distributed increased millicuries. The final prostate D90 result agreed within (-) 5% to (+) 10% of the preplan result in 98% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS CT-US fusion prostate brachytherapy represents a dynamic dosimetry feedback and remediation method that consistently produced high prostate V100 and D90 values with acceptably low urethra D50 and D10 values in our study. The degree of prostate V100 and D90 dosimetry improvement created by remedial source placement effectively matched the degree of initial dosimetry deficiency. This method produced a high level of correlation between the preplan and final prostate D90 values.

[1]  J. Sylvester,et al.  Prostate brachytherapy seed identification on post-implant TRUS images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[2]  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.

[3]  R. Stock,et al.  Comparison of intraoperative dosimetric implant representation with postimplant dosimetry in patients receiving prostate brachytherapy. , 2003, Brachytherapy.

[4]  D. Beyer,et al.  Real-time optimized intraoperative dosimetry for prostate brachytherapy: a pilot study. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  W. Butler,et al.  Effect of prostate size and isotope selection on dosimetric quality following permanent seed implantation. , 2000, Techniques in urology.

[6]  W. Lee,et al.  Postimplant analysis of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy: evidence for a learning curve in the first year at a single institution. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Biochemical Outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam Radiation Therapy, or interstitial Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer , 1998 .

[8]  H H Holm,et al.  Transperineal 125iodine seed implantation in prostatic cancer guided by transrectal ultrasonography. 1983. , 1983, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Y. Yamada,et al.  Improved conformality and decreased toxicity with intraoperative computer-optimized transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate brachytherapy. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  J. Koziol,et al.  Prostate brachytherapy seed migration and dosimetry: analysis of stranded sources and other potential predictive factors. , 2004, Brachytherapy.

[11]  S. Pathak,et al.  Ultrasonography and fluoroscopic fusion for prostate brachytherapy dosimetry. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Optimizing target coverage by dosimetric feedback during prostate brachytherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  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.

[14]  J. Blasko,et al.  Interstitial implantation techniques in prostate cancer , 1997, Journal of surgical oncology.

[15]  W. Butler,et al.  Comparison of dose length, area, and volume histograms as quantifiers of urethral dose in prostate brachytherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Warren D D'Souza,et al.  Dose-volume conundrum for response of prostate cancer to brachytherapy: summary dosimetric measures and their relationship to tumor control probability. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  W Cavanagh,et al.  Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  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.

[19]  Kent Wallner,et al.  The effect of interobserver differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters. , 2003, Medical physics.

[20]  Kenneth B. Thornton,et al.  Toward a dynamic real-time intraoperative permanent prostate brachytherapy methodology. , 2003, Brachytherapy.

[21]  R. Stock,et al.  Importance of post-implant dosimetry in permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 2002, European urology.