L G Marcu1, J M Lawson. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Brachytherapy employing iodine-125 seeds is an established treatment for low-risk prostate cancers. Post-implant dosimetry (PID) is an important tool for identifying suboptimal implants. The aim of this work was to improve suboptimal implants by a subsequent iodine-125 seed top-up (reimplantation), based on the PID results. METHODS: Of 255 patients treated between 2009 and 2012, 6 were identified as having received suboptimal implants and were scheduled for seed top-up. Needle configurations and the number of top-up seeds were determined based on post-implant CT images as well as a reimplantation treatment plan. An average of 14 seeds per patient were implanted during each top-up. Dosimetric outcome was assessed via target parameters and doses received by organs at risk. RESULTS: All six patients had a successful top-up, with a 67% increase in the mean dose delivered to 90% of the prostate volume and a 40% increase in the volume that receives 100% of the prescribed dose. However, the final dosimetric assessment was based on the same seed activity, as the planning system does not account for the decay of the initially implanted seeds. Although physical dosimetry is not influenced by different seed activities (doses are calculated to infinity), the radiobiological implications might be slightly different from the situation when optimal implantation is achieved with one treatment only. CONCLUSION: Seed reimplantation in suboptimal prostate implants is feasible and leads to successful clinical outcomes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Suboptimal prostate implants can occur for various reasons. This work shows that seed reimplantation as salvage therapy can lead to an optimal dosimetric outcome with manageable normal tissue effects.
OBJECTIVE: Brachytherapy employing iodine-125 seeds is an established treatment for low-risk prostate cancers. Post-implant dosimetry (PID) is an important tool for identifying suboptimal implants. The aim of this work was to improve suboptimal implants by a subsequent iodine-125 seed top-up (reimplantation), based on the PID results. METHODS: Of 255 patients treated between 2009 and 2012, 6 were identified as having received suboptimal implants and were scheduled for seed top-up. Needle configurations and the number of top-up seeds were determined based on post-implant CT images as well as a reimplantation treatment plan. An average of 14 seeds per patient were implanted during each top-up. Dosimetric outcome was assessed via target parameters and doses received by organs at risk. RESULTS: All six patients had a successful top-up, with a 67% increase in the mean dose delivered to 90% of the prostate volume and a 40% increase in the volume that receives 100% of the prescribed dose. However, the final dosimetric assessment was based on the same seed activity, as the planning system does not account for the decay of the initially implanted seeds. Although physical dosimetry is not influenced by different seed activities (doses are calculated to infinity), the radiobiological implications might be slightly different from the situation when optimal implantation is achieved with one treatment only. CONCLUSION: Seed reimplantation in suboptimal prostate implants is feasible and leads to successful clinical outcomes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Suboptimal prostate implants can occur for various reasons. This work shows that seed reimplantation as salvage therapy can lead to an optimal dosimetric outcome with manageable normal tissue effects.
Authors: Y Yu; L L Anderson; Z Li; D E Mellenberg; R Nath; M C Schell; F M Waterman; A Wu; J C Blasko Journal: Med Phys Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mira Keyes; Tom Pickles; Alexander Agranovich; Winkle Kwan; W James Morris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brian J Davis; Eric M Horwitz; W Robert Lee; Juanita M Crook; Richard G Stock; Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Peter D Grimm; Nelson N Stone; Louis Potters; Anthony L Zietman; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Ravinder Nath; William S Bice; Wayne M Butler; Zhe Chen; Ali S Meigooni; Vrinda Narayana; Mark J Rivard; Yan Yu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Minsong Cao; Song-Chu Ko; Eric D Slessinger; Colleen M DesRosiers; Peter A Johnstone; Indra J Das Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Laura Doyle; Adam J Hesney; Katherine L Chapman; Haisong Liu; Perry R Weiner; Adam P Dicker; Yan Yu; Timothy N Showalter Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2012-09-29