PURPOSE: The roles of postimplant dosimetry (PID) after permanent I-125 implant are to identify and rectify inadequate implants, assess the dosimetric quality indicators, and evaluate dose to the organs at risk. The aim of the current work was to assess the progress of prostate implant quality via postimplant dosimetry over seven years. METHODS: The following factors were investigated to assess the PID results obtained over seven years: the improvement in implant technique, the computed tomography (CT) delineation-based PID versus ultrasound-CT (US-CT) fusion-based PID, and the evolution of parameters such as D90 and NDR (natural dose ratio). The correlation between dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: The seven years PID learning curve shows clear changes in dosimetric trend for the 265 patients studied. Manual target contouring on CT was shown to overestimate the prostate volume when compared to ultrasound data, translating to CT-based D90 values being lower than US-CT D90. It was found that NDR does not contribute with additional dosimetric information to postimplant dosimetry evaluation. Patient follow-up data show that 4.7% patients have relapsed, and urinary retention was reported in 2.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT-based PID was found less reliable than US-CT fusion-based PID due to target volume overestimation. This result shows the biased interpretation of low D90 values based on CT-based targeting, providing unreliable correlations between D90 and relapse probability. The low urinary retention statistics are in accordance with the PID data for the organ, as only 5.2% of patients had their PID D10 > 218 Gy, i.e., above the recommended GEC-ESTRO guidelines. Besides the "learning" component, the PID D90 curve is influenced by the PID technique.
PURPOSE: The roles of postimplant dosimetry (PID) after permanent I-125 implant are to identify and rectify inadequate implants, assess the dosimetric quality indicators, and evaluate dose to the organs at risk. The aim of the current work was to assess the progress of prostate implant quality via postimplant dosimetry over seven years. METHODS: The following factors were investigated to assess the PID results obtained over seven years: the improvement in implant technique, the computed tomography (CT) delineation-based PID versus ultrasound-CT (US-CT) fusion-based PID, and the evolution of parameters such as D90 and NDR (natural dose ratio). The correlation between dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: The seven years PID learning curve shows clear changes in dosimetric trend for the 265 patients studied. Manual target contouring on CT was shown to overestimate the prostate volume when compared to ultrasound data, translating to CT-based D90 values being lower than US-CT D90. It was found that NDR does not contribute with additional dosimetric information to postimplant dosimetry evaluation. Patient follow-up data show that 4.7% patients have relapsed, and urinary retention was reported in 2.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT-based PID was found less reliable than US-CT fusion-based PID due to target volume overestimation. This result shows the biased interpretation of low D90 values based on CT-based targeting, providing unreliable correlations between D90 and relapse probability. The low urinary retention statistics are in accordance with the PID data for the organ, as only 5.2% of patients had their PID D10 > 218 Gy, i.e., above the recommended GEC-ESTRO guidelines. Besides the "learning" component, the PID D90 curve is influenced by the PID technique.