BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate differences in rectal dosimetry between pre-plan ultrasonography (US) and post-implant computed tomography (CT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects comprised 49 patients who underwent prostate brachytherapy using (125)I seed implants. Prescribed dose was 145Gy to the periphery of the prostate. Differences in rectal dosimetry between pre-plan US and post-implant CT analysis were evaluated. In addition, patients were divided into two groups according to timing of pre-planning (pre-plan group, n=28; intraoperative pre-plan group, n=21), and differences in rectal dosimetry between groups were assessed. RESULTS: The average of volume differences between pre-plan and post-implant analysis (pre-plan minus post-implant analysis) for all patients were follows: -0.08 cm(3) in V60 (volume of rectal wall receiving 60% of prescribed dose); -0.05 cm(3) in V70; -0.16 cm(3) in V80; -0.38 cm(3) in V90; -0.40 cm(3) in V100; -0.32 cm(3) in V110; -0.22 cm(3) in V120; -0.15 cm(3) in V130; -0.10 cm(3) in V140; -0.07 cm(3) in V150; and -0.05 cm(3) in V160. Apparent differences between pre-plan US and post-implant CT in rectal dosimetry were small. However, considering the steep curve of the relationship between tolerable volume and dose, a large actual difference should be assumed. No advantage was identified for the intraoperative pre-plan group. Safe volume to avoid proctitis tended to be smaller on ultrasonography than on CT at 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: The present work shows that direct comparison of CT analysis and pre-plan US is unfavorable due to large differences in these modalities and overestimation of tolerable volume. However, by comprehending the degree of difference, comparison of data from CT analysis with a US pre-plan may be feasible and useful for providing feedback between these modalities.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate differences in rectal dosimetry between pre-plan ultrasonography (US) and post-implant computed tomography (CT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects comprised 49 patients who underwent prostate brachytherapy using (125)I seed implants. Prescribed dose was 145Gy to the periphery of the prostate. Differences in rectal dosimetry between pre-plan US and post-implant CT analysis were evaluated. In addition, patients were divided into two groups according to timing of pre-planning (pre-plan group, n=28; intraoperative pre-plan group, n=21), and differences in rectal dosimetry between groups were assessed. RESULTS: The average of volume differences between pre-plan and post-implant analysis (pre-plan minus post-implant analysis) for all patients were follows: -0.08 cm(3) in V60 (volume of rectal wall receiving 60% of prescribed dose); -0.05 cm(3) in V70; -0.16 cm(3) in V80; -0.38 cm(3) in V90; -0.40 cm(3) in V100; -0.32 cm(3) in V110; -0.22 cm(3) in V120; -0.15 cm(3) in V130; -0.10 cm(3) in V140; -0.07 cm(3) in V150; and -0.05 cm(3) in V160. Apparent differences between pre-plan US and post-implant CT in rectal dosimetry were small. However, considering the steep curve of the relationship between tolerable volume and dose, a large actual difference should be assumed. No advantage was identified for the intraoperative pre-plan group. Safe volume to avoid proctitis tended to be smaller on ultrasonography than on CT at 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: The present work shows that direct comparison of CT analysis and pre-plan US is unfavorable due to large differences in these modalities and overestimation of tolerable volume. However, by comprehending the degree of difference, comparison of data from CT analysis with a US pre-plan may be feasible and useful for providing feedback between these modalities.