R A Cormack1, C M Tempany, A V D'Amico. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. cormack@jcrt.harvard.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postimplant dosimetry of permanent prostate implants shows a loss of coverage compared to the preplan. One contributing factor is needle misplacement. The significance of needle misplacement and the clinical utility of dosimetric feedback were analyzed in the setting of interventional magnetic resonance (IMR) guided prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Information provided by an intraoperative planning system was analyzed for 10 patients. Needle misplacement was measured and the dosimetric consequences calculated. Additional catheters and sources were placed following the insertion of all planned catheters to compensate for nonideal needle placement. RESULTS: Source misplacement ranged from 0.0 to 1.0 cm (median, 0.3 cm). The resulting loss of coverage ranged from 1% to 13%, and the intraoperative dosimetric feedback allowed a recovery of from 0% to 12% coverage. Between 0 and 3 (median, 2) additional needles and from 0 to 10 (median, 8) additional sources were required to restore coverage of the target. Final planned coverage exceeded 94% for all patients. CONCLUSION: The discrepancy between planned and achieved needle placement leads to a loss of dosimetric coverage of the target volume. Dosimetric feedback allows compensation for needle divergence. The technique of real-time dosimetric feedback does not require an IMR system, and could be generalized to ultrasound-guided implants.
PURPOSE: Postimplant dosimetry of permanent prostate implants shows a loss of coverage compared to the preplan. One contributing factor is needle misplacement. The significance of needle misplacement and the clinical utility of dosimetric feedback were analyzed in the setting of interventional magnetic resonance (IMR) guided prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Information provided by an intraoperative planning system was analyzed for 10 patients. Needle misplacement was measured and the dosimetric consequences calculated. Additional catheters and sources were placed following the insertion of all planned catheters to compensate for nonideal needle placement. RESULTS: Source misplacement ranged from 0.0 to 1.0 cm (median, 0.3 cm). The resulting loss of coverage ranged from 1% to 13%, and the intraoperative dosimetric feedback allowed a recovery of from 0% to 12% coverage. Between 0 and 3 (median, 2) additional needles and from 0 to 10 (median, 8) additional sources were required to restore coverage of the target. Final planned coverage exceeded 94% for all patients. CONCLUSION: The discrepancy between planned and achieved needle placement leads to a loss of dosimetric coverage of the target volume. Dosimetric feedback allows compensation for needle divergence. The technique of real-time dosimetric feedback does not require an IMR system, and could be generalized to ultrasound-guided implants.
Authors: Michael Muntener; Alexandru Patriciu; Doru Petrisor; Dumitru Mazilu; Herman Bagga; Louis Kavoussi; Kevin Cleary; Dan Stoianovici Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ravinder Nath; William S Bice; Wayne M Butler; Zhe Chen; Ali S Meigooni; Vrinda Narayana; Mark J Rivard; Yan Yu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.071