Literature DB >> 20122874

Differences between intraoperative ultrasound-based dosimetry and postoperative computed tomography-based dosimetry for permanent interstitial prostate brachytherapy.

Hiromichi Ishiyama1, Ryuji Nakamura, Takefumi Satoh, Susumu Tanji, Mineko Uemae, Shiro Baba, Kazushige Hayakawa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the results of intraoperative ultrasound (US)-based dosimetry with those of postimplant computed tomography (CT)-based dosimetry after (125)I prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Subjects comprised 160 patients who underwent prostate brachytherapy using (125)I seed implants. Prescribed dose was set as 145 Gy to the periphery of the prostate. Implantation was performed using an intraoperative interactive technique. Postimplant dosimetry was performed on Days 1 and 30 after implantation using CT. Dosimetric results for the prostate, urethra, and rectum were compared among intraoperative US and CT on Day 1 (CT(1)) and Day 30 (CT(30)).
RESULTS: Mean minimal dose received by 90% of prostate volume was 133.7%, 115.6%, and 125.8% of the prescribed dose on US, CT(1), and CT(30), respectively: This value temporarily decreased on Day 1 and increased on Day 30. Other parameters for the prostate and urethra showed similar trends. Conversely, mean rectal volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose was 0.69, 0.46, and 1.02 mL on US, CT(1), and CT(30), respectively. Rectal parameters tended to be underestimated on US relative to CT(30)-based dosimetry. A positive linear relationship was identified between US and CT observations for every prostate parameter and the dose covering 30% of the urethra.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate significant differences between dosimetric parameters obtained by US, CT(1), and CT(30). However, significant correlations also exist between US and CT, at least in prostate and urethral parameters. Clarification of the degrees of difference might make US planning more feasible. (c) 2010 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20122874     DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2009.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brachytherapy        ISSN: 1538-4721            Impact factor:   2.362


  4 in total

1.  Preoperative treatment planning with intraoperative optimization can achieve consistent high-quality implants in prostate brachytherapy.

Authors:  Rajat J Kudchadker; Thomas J Pugh; David A Swanson; Teresa L Bruno; Yasemin Bolukbasi; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 1.482

2.  Narrow safety range of intraoperative rectal irradiation exposure volume for avoiding bleeding after seed implant brachytherapy.

Authors:  Ryuji Nakamura; Koyo Kikuchi; Susumu Tanji; Tomonori Yabuuchi; Ikuko Uwano; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Hisanori Ariga; Tomoaki Fujioka
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 3.481

3.  Progressive transition from pre-planned to intraoperative optimizing seed implant: post implementation analysis.

Authors:  Hsiang-Chi Kuo; William Bodner; Ravindra Yaparpalvi; Chandan Guha; Bhupendra M Tolia; Keyur J Mehta; Dennis Mah; Shalom Kalnicki
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2012-03-30

4.  A comparison of preplan MRI and preplan CT-based prostate volume with intraoperative ultrasound-based prostate volume in real-time permanent brachytherapy.

Authors:  Hyeli Park; Ja Young Kim; Bo Mi Lee; Sei Kyung Chang; Seung Young Ko; Sung Jun Kim; Dong Soo Park; Hyun Soo Shin
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2011-09-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.