PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate the dose distributions of high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate implants regarding target coverage, dose homogeneity, and dose to organs at risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Treatment plans of 174 implants were evaluated using cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs). The planning was based on transrectal ultrasound (US) imaging, and the prescribed dose (100%) was 10 Gy. The tolerance doses to rectum and urethra were 80% and 120%, respectively. Dose-volume parameters for target (V90, V100, V150, V200, D90, D(min)) and quality indices (DNR [dose nonuniformity ratio], DHI [dose homogeneity index], CI [coverage index], COIN [conformal index]) were calculated. Maximum dose in reference points of rectum (D(r)) and urethra (D(u)), dose to volume of 2 cm(3) of the rectum (D(2ccm)), and 0.1 cm(3) and 1% of the urethra (D(0.1ccm) and D1) were determined. Nonparametric correlation analysis was performed between these parameters. RESULTS: The median number of needles was 16, the mean prostate volume (V(p)) was 27.1 cm(3). The mean V90, V100, V150, and V200 were 99%, 97%, 39%, and 13%, respectively. The mean D90 was 109%, and the D(min) was 87%. The mean doses in rectum and urethra reference points were 75% and 119%, respectively. The mean volumetric doses were D(2ccm) = 49% for the rectum, D(0.1ccm) = 126%, and D1 = 140% for the urethra. The mean DNR was 0.37, while the DHI was 0.60. The mean COIN was 0.66. The Spearman rank order correlation coefficients for volume doses to rectum and urethra were R(D(r),D(2ccm)) = 0.69, R(D(u),D0.(1ccm)) = 0.64, R(D(u),D1) = 0.23. CONCLUSION: US-based treatment plans for HDR prostate implants based on the real positions of catheters provided acceptable dose distributions. In the majority of the cases, the doses to urethra and rectum were kept below the defined tolerance levels. For rectum, the dose in reference points correlated well with dose-volume parameters. For urethra dose characterization, the use of D1 volumetric parameter is recommended.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate the dose distributions of high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate implants regarding target coverage, dose homogeneity, and dose to organs at risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Treatment plans of 174 implants were evaluated using cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs). The planning was based on transrectal ultrasound (US) imaging, and the prescribed dose (100%) was 10 Gy. The tolerance doses to rectum and urethra were 80% and 120%, respectively. Dose-volume parameters for target (V90, V100, V150, V200, D90, D(min)) and quality indices (DNR [dose nonuniformity ratio], DHI [dose homogeneity index], CI [coverage index], COIN [conformal index]) were calculated. Maximum dose in reference points of rectum (D(r)) and urethra (D(u)), dose to volume of 2 cm(3) of the rectum (D(2ccm)), and 0.1 cm(3) and 1% of the urethra (D(0.1ccm) and D1) were determined. Nonparametric correlation analysis was performed between these parameters. RESULTS: The median number of needles was 16, the mean prostate volume (V(p)) was 27.1 cm(3). The mean V90, V100, V150, and V200 were 99%, 97%, 39%, and 13%, respectively. The mean D90 was 109%, and the D(min) was 87%. The mean doses in rectum and urethra reference points were 75% and 119%, respectively. The mean volumetric doses were D(2ccm) = 49% for the rectum, D(0.1ccm) = 126%, and D1 = 140% for the urethra. The mean DNR was 0.37, while the DHI was 0.60. The mean COIN was 0.66. The Spearman rank order correlation coefficients for volume doses to rectum and urethra were R(D(r),D(2ccm)) = 0.69, R(D(u),D0.(1ccm)) = 0.64, R(D(u),D1) = 0.23. CONCLUSION: US-based treatment plans for HDR prostate implants based on the real positions of catheters provided acceptable dose distributions. In the majority of the cases, the doses to urethra and rectum were kept below the defined tolerance levels. For rectum, the dose in reference points correlated well with dose-volume parameters. For urethra dose characterization, the use of D1 volumetric parameter is recommended.
Authors: Jinka R Sathya; Ian R Davis; Jim A Julian; Qing Guo; Dean Daya; Ian S Dayes; Himu R Lukka; Mark Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Karin Fischedick; Peter Treusacher; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Holger Borchers; Gerhard Jakse; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-11-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: György Kovács; Richard Pötter; Tillmann Loch; Josef Hammer; Inger-Karine Kolkman-Deurloo; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Hagen Bertermann Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Kent E Wallner; Zachariah A Allen; Robert W Galbreath; Jonathan H Lief; Daniel J Reed Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: V R Kini; G K Edmundson; F A Vicini; D A Jaffray; G Gustafson; A A Martinez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038