PURPOSE: The study aimed to analyze the Pro-Qura database in terms of patient implant sequence number for each institution to determine evidence for a dosimetric learning curve. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the Pro-Qura database, 2833 of a total of 4614 postplans from 57 brachytherapists were analyzed for evidence of a dosimetric learning curve. The median time between implant and postimplant CT scan was 30 days. I-125 was used in 2123 patients (1687 monotherapy and 536 boost) and Pd-103 in 710 patients (367 monotherapy and 343 boost). Preimplant prostate volume was 35.3 and 32.9 cm3 in the I-125 and Pd-103 cohorts, respectively. The mean I-125 seed activity was 0.32 and 0.26 mCi for monotherapy and boost, whereas for Pd-103 the mean seed activity was 1.59 and 1.27 mCi, respectively. Postimplant dosimetry was performed in a standardized fashion by overlaying the preimplant ultrasound and the postimplant CT scan. Criteria for implant adequacy included a D90 >90% and a V100 >80% for both isotopes. An adequate V150 was defined as <60% for I-125 and <75% for Pd-103. RESULTS: The mean V100 and D90 were 88.9% and 101.9% of prescription dose, respectively. When analyzed in terms of patient sequence number for each institution, the mean V100 for the first 10 patients was 87.4% and increased to 88.6% for patients 11-20 (p = 0.036). Similarly, the mean D90 for the first 10 patients was 98.9%, whereas for the second cohort of 10 patients the mean D90 increased to 102.2% (p = 0.001). In terms of mean V100 and D90, there was minimal further change for subsequent 10 patient institutional groupings of patient sequence numbers. For the first 10 cases, 27.2% were deemed "too cool" (V100 <80% and/or D90 <90%). Approximately 16% of all implants were deemed "too hot" (D90 >140% or V150 >60% for I-125 or >75% for Pd-103). CONCLUSIONS: Although a learning curve exists for prostate brachytherapy, high-quality brachytherapy is achievable in approximately 75-80% of patients treated at community centers.
PURPOSE: The study aimed to analyze the Pro-Qura database in terms of patient implant sequence number for each institution to determine evidence for a dosimetric learning curve. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the Pro-Qura database, 2833 of a total of 4614 postplans from 57 brachytherapists were analyzed for evidence of a dosimetric learning curve. The median time between implant and postimplant CT scan was 30 days. I-125 was used in 2123 patients (1687 monotherapy and 536 boost) and Pd-103 in 710 patients (367 monotherapy and 343 boost). Preimplant prostate volume was 35.3 and 32.9 cm3 in the I-125 and Pd-103 cohorts, respectively. The mean I-125 seed activity was 0.32 and 0.26 mCi for monotherapy and boost, whereas for Pd-103 the mean seed activity was 1.59 and 1.27 mCi, respectively. Postimplant dosimetry was performed in a standardized fashion by overlaying the preimplant ultrasound and the postimplant CT scan. Criteria for implant adequacy included a D90 >90% and a V100 >80% for both isotopes. An adequate V150 was defined as <60% for I-125 and <75% for Pd-103. RESULTS: The mean V100 and D90 were 88.9% and 101.9% of prescription dose, respectively. When analyzed in terms of patient sequence number for each institution, the mean V100 for the first 10 patients was 87.4% and increased to 88.6% for patients 11-20 (p = 0.036). Similarly, the mean D90 for the first 10 patients was 98.9%, whereas for the second cohort of 10 patients the mean D90 increased to 102.2% (p = 0.001). In terms of mean V100 and D90, there was minimal further change for subsequent 10 patient institutional groupings of patient sequence numbers. For the first 10 cases, 27.2% were deemed "too cool" (V100 <80% and/or D90 <90%). Approximately 16% of all implants were deemed "too hot" (D90 >140% or V150 >60% for I-125 or >75% for Pd-103). CONCLUSIONS: Although a learning curve exists for prostate brachytherapy, high-quality brachytherapy is achievable in approximately 75-80% of patients treated at community centers.
Authors: Gabor Fichtinger; Jonathan P Fiene; Christopher W Kennedy; Gernot Kronreif; Iulian Iordachita; Danny Y Song; Everette C Burdette; Peter Kazanzides Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Gil'ad N Cohen; Walter R Bosch; Lisa Morikawa; Najma Khalid; Cheryl L Crozier; W Robert Lee; Anthony Zietman; Jean Owen; J Frank Wilson; Phillip M Devlin Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: E Le Fur; J P Malhaire; D Baverez; F Delage; M A Perrouin-Verbe; F Schlurmann; S Guerif; G Fournier; O Pradier; A Valeri Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Dong Soo Park; In Hyuck Gong; Don Kyung Choi; Jin Ho Hwang; Hyun Soo Shin; Jong Jin Oh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Tanmay Singh; Junghoon Lee; Marianna Zahurak; Hee Joon Bae; Tamey Habtu; Robert Hobbs; Yi Le; Everette C Burdette; Daniel Y Song Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-13
Authors: Stephen R Thompson; Geoff P Delaney; Gabriel S Gabriel; Michael A Izard; George Hruby; Raj Jagavkar; Joseph Bucci; Michael B Barton Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2014-11-12
Authors: Carlos Antônio da Silva Franca; Sérgio Lannes Vieira; Antonio Carlos Pires Carvalho; Antonio Jose Serrano Bernabe; Antonio Belmiro Rodrigues Campbell Penna Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2014 Mar-Apr
Authors: Dong Soo Park; In Hyuck Gong; Don Kyung Choi; Jin Ho Hwang; Hyun Soo Shin; Jong Jin Oh Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Peter Grimm; Mallory Morris; Jonathan H Lief; Abbey Bennett; Ryan Fiano Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2013-10-02