T Shaikh1, N G Zaorsky1, K Ruth2, D Y Chen3, R E Greenberg3, J Li1, K Crawford1, E M Horwitz4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: Eric.Horwitz@fccc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging-based day 0 (d0) dosimetry is a meaningful predictor of day 21 (d21) dosimetry in low-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 277 men with localized (T1-2 N0 M0), low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion was used for postimplant dosimetry at d0 and d21. Logistic regression was used to construct receiver operating characteristic curves for achieving each constraint at d21, based on d0 D90 and V100, and Youden's index was used to evaluate cutpoints. Freedom from biochemical failure (FBCF) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median d0 D90 increased from 133 to 150 Gy at d21, and median d0 V100 increased from 87% to 91%. For achieving the D90 constraint at d21, the optimal cut-point for d0 D90 was 135 Gy, with 84% of these patients maintaining a d21 D90 > 145 Gy. For achieving the D90 constraint at d21, the optimal cut-point for d0 V100 was 87%, with 83% of these patients maintained a d21 V100 > 90%. There was no improvement in FBCF in patients with a d0 D90 > 135 Gy or D90 > 145 Gy. Similarly, there was no improvement in FBCF in patients with a d0 V100 > 87% or V100 > 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Meeting dosimetric constraints on d0 does not obviate d21 dosimetric analysis. Constraints used for dose prescriptions on d0 are not the ideal predictors of d21 dosimetry.
PURPOSE: To determine whether computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging-based day 0 (d0) dosimetry is a meaningful predictor of day 21 (d21) dosimetry in low-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 277 men with localized (T1-2 N0 M0), low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion was used for postimplant dosimetry at d0 and d21. Logistic regression was used to construct receiver operating characteristic curves for achieving each constraint at d21, based on d0 D90 and V100, and Youden's index was used to evaluate cutpoints. Freedom from biochemical failure (FBCF) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median d0 D90 increased from 133 to 150 Gy at d21, and median d0 V100 increased from 87% to 91%. For achieving the D90 constraint at d21, the optimal cut-point for d0 D90 was 135 Gy, with 84% of these patients maintaining a d21 D90 > 145 Gy. For achieving the D90 constraint at d21, the optimal cut-point for d0 V100 was 87%, with 83% of these patients maintained a d21 V100 > 90%. There was no improvement in FBCF in patients with a d0 D90 > 135 Gy or D90 > 145 Gy. Similarly, there was no improvement in FBCF in patients with a d0 V100 > 87% or V100 > 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Meeting dosimetric constraints on d0 does not obviate d21 dosimetric analysis. Constraints used for dose prescriptions on d0 are not the ideal predictors of d21 dosimetry.
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: Peter Orio; Kent Wallner; Gregory Merrick; Andrew Herstein; Paul Mitsuyama; Ken Thornton; Wayne Butler; Steven Sutlief Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kent Wallner; Gregory Merrick; Lawrence True; Steven Sutlief; William Cavanagh; Wayne Butler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Louis Potters; Carol Morgenstern; Emil Calugaru; Paul Fearn; Anup Jassal; Joseph Presser; Edward Mullen Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Navesh K Sharma; Randi J Cohen; Thomas N Eade; Mark K Buyyounouski; Robert G Uzzo; Jinsheng Li; Kevin Crawford; David Y T Chen; Shawn McNeeley; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2009-10-21 Impact factor: 2.362
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
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Brian J Davis; Paul L Nguyen; Timothy N Showalter; Peter J Hoskin; Yasuo Yoshioka; Gerard C Morton; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 14.432