The robustness of dose distributions to displacement and migration of 125I permanent seed implants over a wide range of seed number, activity, and designs.

PURPOSE To investigate the robustness of permanent prostate implant dosimetry for various (125)I seed activities and various seed models. The dosimetric impact of seed misplacement and seed migration (seed loss) is also taken into account using various standard dose indices. METHODS AND MATERIALS A dose-based inverse planning algorithm is used for automated dosimetric plan creation (45-60 s per plan) and provides an unbiased way to compare the robustness of various optimal dosimetric plans. Seed misplacement and seed migration are simulated by way of Monte Carlo, based on the measured displacement distributions from clinical postimplant cases. Plans were generated for seed activities between 0.2 and 1.4 mCi (0.25 to 1.78 U) and for 11 different seed models. RESULTS The numbers of seeds and needles are shown to decrease rapidly for a seed activity between 0.3 mCi and 0.6 mCi (0.38 and 0.76 U). The loss in V100, from 100%, because of seed misplacement is below 10% for an apparent activity ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 mCi (0.25 to 1.14 U). A minimum degradation in V100 is observed around 0.6-0.7 mCi (0.76-0.89 U). D90 increases from 150 to 170 Gy between 0.3 and 0.7 mCi (0.38 and 0.89 U) and decreases afterward to fall below 140 Gy at higher activity. V200 and D10 to the target volume both show an increase in hot spots up to 0.7 mCi, and then decrease linearly at higher activities for all seed models. V200 and D10 to the urethra remain about constant for all seed activities up to 0.8 mCi (1.02 U), at which point they start to decrease. All seed models follow this general trend. CONCLUSIONS Plans were shown to be robust to misplacement and migration of seeds over a wide range of seed activity and for various seed models. With a properly tuned inverse planning algorithm able to ensure the dose coverage and protection for the organs at risk in the presence of placement errors (displacement and migration), the choice of a preferred seed activity, in a range up to about 0.7 mCi (0.89 U), is open. The upper part of this range offers the opportunity to significantly reduce the number of seeds and needles, thus reducing surgical trauma to the patient, saving time in an operating room planning setting, and reducing the cost of a permanent prostate implant procedure.

[1]  J Pouliot,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations of prostate implants to improve dosimetry and compare planning methods. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

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

[4]  M. Zaider,et al.  Treatment planning for prostate implants using magnetic-resonance spectroscopy imaging. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  J. Ciezki,et al.  Dosimetric comparison of pre-planned and or-planned prostate seed brachytherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  Patrick W McLaughlin,et al.  Randomized trial of high- and low-source strength (125)I prostate seed implants. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  Geometric accuracy of field alignment in fractionated stereotactic conformal radiotherapy of brain tumors. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  L Verhey,et al.  Static field intensity modulation to treat a dominant intra-prostatic lesion to 90 Gy compared to seven field 3-dimensional radiotherapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[10]  R. Sloboda,et al.  Dosimetric consequences of increased seed strength for I-125 prostate implants. , 2003, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

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

[12]  Can the cost of permanent prostate implants be reduced? An argument for peripheral loading with higher strength seeds. , 2000 .

[13]  Dragan Tubic,et al.  Automatic post-implant needle reconstruction algorithm to characterize and improve implant robustness analyses. , 2003, Medical physics.

[14]  Y. Yamada,et al.  Postimplantation dosimetric analysis of permanent transperineal prostate implantation: improved dose distributions with an intraoperative computer-optimized conformal planning technique. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  W. Butler,et al.  Isotope choice and the effect of edema on prostate brachytherapy dosimetry. , 2000, Medical physics.

[16]  W D D'Souza,et al.  Dose homogeneity as a function of source activity in optimized I-125 prostate implant treatment plans. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  M Zaider,et al.  Dosimetric and volumetric criteria for selecting a source activity and a source type ((125)I or (103)Pd) in the presence of irregular seed placement in permanent prostate implants. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[19]  J. Pouliot,et al.  Optimization of permanent 125I prostate implants using fast simulated annealing. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  K. Wallner,et al.  Clinical correlates of high intraprostatic brachytherapy dose volumes. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  P. Okunieff,et al.  Intraoperative optimized inverse planning for prostate brachytherapy: early experience. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  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.

[23]  Ross Halperin,et al.  Is there a preferred strength for regularly spaced 125I seeds in inverse-planned prostate implants? , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[25]  J. Hevezi,et al.  Comparison of I-125 sources used for permanent interstitial implants. , 2001, Medical physics.