Postimplantation dosimetric analysis of permanent transperineal prostate implantation: improved dose distributions with an intraoperative computer-optimized conformal planning technique.

PURPOSE: To compare the target coverage and dose to normal tissues after I-125 transperineal permanent implantation (TPI) of the prostate in 90 patients treated with one of three different transperineal techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Detailed postimplant dosimetric evaluations of permanent I-125 implantation procedures were performed on 30 consecutive patients treated between 1995-1996 who underwent TPI using a preplanning CT-based technique, on 30 consecutive patients treated in 1997-1998 who underwent an ultrasound-guided approach with intraoperative determination of seed distribution based on an I-125 nomogram, and on 30 consecutive patients in 1998-1999 who underwent TPI with intraoperative computer-based 3-dimensional conformal optimization. For all three techniques, postimplant CT scans were obtained 4-6 hours after TPI. Dosimetric parameters included V(100), V(90), V(150), D(100), D(90), D(80), as well as maximal and average doses to the urethra and rectal wall. These parameter outcomes are reported as a percentage of the prescription dose.
RESULTS: The intraoperative 3D-optimized technique (I-3D) provided superior target coverage with the prescription dose for all dosimetric variables evaluated compared to the other treatment techniques. The median V(100), V(90), and D(90) values for the I-3D technique were 96%, 98%, and 116%, respectively. In contrast, the V(100), V(90), and D(90) values for the CT preplan and ultrasound manual optimization approaches were 86%, 89%, and 88%, respectively and 88%, 92%, and 94%, respectively (I-3D versus other techniques: p < 0.001). The superior target coverage with the I-3D technique was also associated with a higher cumulative implant activity required by the optimization program. A multivariate analysis determined that the treatment technique (I-3D versus other approaches) was an independent predictor of improved target coverage for each parameter analyzed (p < 0.001). In addition, higher cumulative implant activities and smaller prostate target volumes were independent predictors of improved target coverage. The maximum and average urethral doses were significantly lower with the I-3D technique compared to the other techniques; a modest increase in the average rectal dose was also observed with this approach.
CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional intraoperative computer optimized TPI consistently provided superior target coverage with the prescription dose and significantly lower urethral doses compared to two other techniques used. These data provide proof-of-principle that improved therapeutic ratios can be achieved with the integration of more sophisticated intraoperative planning for TPI and may potentially have a profound impact on the outcome of patients treated with this modality.