PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to establish guidelines for postimplant dosimetric analysis of permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) with expertise in prostate dosimetry evaluation performed a literature review and supplemented with their clinical experience formulated guidelines for performing and analyzing postimplant dosimetry of permanent prostate brachytherapy. RESULTS: The ABS recommends that postimplant dosimetry should be performed on all patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy for optimal patient care. At present, computed tomography (CT)-based dosimetry is recommended, based on availability cost and the ability to image the prostate as well as the seeds. Additional plane radiographs should be obtained to verify the seed count. Until the ideal postoperative interval for CT scanning has been determined, each center should perform dosimetric evaluation of prostate implants at a consistent postoperative interval. This interval should be reported. Isodose displays should be obtained at 50%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescription dose and displayed on multiple cross-sectional images of the prostate. A dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the prostate should be performed and the D90 (dose to 90% of the prostate gland) reported by all centers. Additionally, the D80, D100, the fractional V80, V90, V100, V150 and V200 (i.e., the percentage of prostate volume receiving 80%, 90%, 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescribed dose, respectively), the rectal, and urethral doses should be reported and ultimately correlated with clinical outcome in the research environment. On-line real-time dosimetry, the effects of dose heterogeneity, and the effects of tissue heterogeneity need further investigation. CONCLUSION: It is essential that postimplant dosimetry should be performed on all patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy. Guidelines were established for the performance and analysis of such dosimetry.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to establish guidelines for postimplant dosimetric analysis of permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) with expertise in prostate dosimetry evaluation performed a literature review and supplemented with their clinical experience formulated guidelines for performing and analyzing postimplant dosimetry of permanent prostate brachytherapy. RESULTS: The ABS recommends that postimplant dosimetry should be performed on all patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy for optimal patient care. At present, computed tomography (CT)-based dosimetry is recommended, based on availability cost and the ability to image the prostate as well as the seeds. Additional plane radiographs should be obtained to verify the seed count. Until the ideal postoperative interval for CT scanning has been determined, each center should perform dosimetric evaluation of prostate implants at a consistent postoperative interval. This interval should be reported. Isodose displays should be obtained at 50%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescription dose and displayed on multiple cross-sectional images of the prostate. A dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the prostate should be performed and the D90 (dose to 90% of the prostate gland) reported by all centers. Additionally, the D80, D100, the fractional V80, V90, V100, V150 and V200 (i.e., the percentage of prostate volume receiving 80%, 90%, 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescribed dose, respectively), the rectal, and urethral doses should be reported and ultimately correlated with clinical outcome in the research environment. On-line real-time dosimetry, the effects of dose heterogeneity, and the effects of tissue heterogeneity need further investigation. CONCLUSION: It is essential that postimplant dosimetry should be performed on all patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy. Guidelines were established for the performance and analysis of such dosimetry.
Authors: Georgina Fröhlich; Péter Agoston; József Lövey; András Somogyi; János Fodor; Csaba Polgár; Tibor Major Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 3.621