C A Oton1, L Blanco, L F Oton, S Moral. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of La Laguna Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, caoton@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To delineate the clinical target volume (CTV) in low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer, American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommends a CTV = prostate. ESTRO advocates a CTV = prostate + 3 mm excluding rectum and many authors use and recommend other different CTVs. This study aims to: (1) evaluate the appropriateness of these recommendations and (2) test the applicability of seed distributions on the different CTVs and contrast the dosimetric differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients treated with (125)I seeds (dose 145 Gy; CTV = prostate) were studied. We established for every patient: (1) risk of extraprostatic extension (EPE), (2) adequacy of original plan to an extended CTV with 3 mm-margin (3) a new planning and seed distribution for this CTV and (4) comparison of dosimetry of both plans. RESULTS: Mean risk of EPE was 28.46 %. Original plan, when applied to the extended CTV, resulted in unsatisfactory dosimetry. A plan was generated for the 98 extended CTVs meeting all dosimetric specifications. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of EPE is high enough to consider a 3 mm-margin around prostate necessary for all cases. A CTV = prostate + 3 mm except rectum as ESTRO recommends is feasible and would adjust planning to the most probable extension of the tumor.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To delineate the clinical target volume (CTV) in low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer, American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommends a CTV = prostate. ESTRO advocates a CTV = prostate + 3 mm excluding rectum and many authors use and recommend other different CTVs. This study aims to: (1) evaluate the appropriateness of these recommendations and (2) test the applicability of seed distributions on the different CTVs and contrast the dosimetric differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients treated with (125)I seeds (dose 145 Gy; CTV = prostate) were studied. We established for every patient: (1) risk of extraprostatic extension (EPE), (2) adequacy of original plan to an extended CTV with 3 mm-margin (3) a new planning and seed distribution for this CTV and (4) comparison of dosimetry of both plans. RESULTS: Mean risk of EPE was 28.46 %. Original plan, when applied to the extended CTV, resulted in unsatisfactory dosimetry. A plan was generated for the 98 extended CTVs meeting all dosimetric specifications. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of EPE is high enough to consider a 3 mm-margin around prostate necessary for all cases. A CTV = prostate + 3 mm except rectum as ESTRO recommends is feasible and would adjust planning to the most probable extension of the tumor.
Authors: Wayland Hsiao; Kelvin A Moses; Michael Goodman; Ashesh B Jani; Peter J Rossi; Viraj A Master Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mira Keyes; Juanita Crook; W James Morris; Gerard Morton; Tom Pickles; Nawaid Usmani; Eric Vigneault Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
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: Colleen A Lawton; Michelle DeSilvio; W Robert Lee; Leonard Gomella; David Grignon; Michael Gillin; Gerard Morton; Thomas Pisansky; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Colleen A Lawton; Daniel Hunt; W Robert Lee; Leonard Gomella; David Grignon; Michael Gillin; Gerard Morton; Thomas M Pisansky; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johnny Kao; Nelson N Stone; Amir Lavaf; Vishruta Dumane; Jamie A Cesaretti; Richard G Stock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David J Schwartz; Shomik Sengupta; David W Hillman; Daniel J Sargent; John C Cheville; Torrence M Wilson; Lance A Mynderse; Richard Choo; Brian J Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038