PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and utility of performing centralized postimplant analysis for transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) by conducting a pilot study that compares the results obtained from 125I implants conducted at five different institutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis was performed on 10 postimplant CT scans from each of five institutions. This analysis included the total implanted activity of 125I, ultrasound, and CT volumes of the prostate, target-volume ratios, dose homogeneity quantifiers, prostate dose coverage indices, and rectal doses. As a result of the uncertainty associated with the delineation of the prostatic boundaries on a CT scan, the contours were redrawn by a single, study center physician, and a repeat DVH analysis was performed. This provided the basis for comparison between institutions in terms of implant technique and quality. RESULTS: By comparing total activity to preimplant ultrasound volume we clearly demonstrated that differences exist in implant technique among these five institutions. The difficulty associated with determining glandular boundaries on CT scans was apparent, based upon the variability in prostate volumes drawn by the various investigators compared to those drawn by the study center physician. This made no difference, of course, in the TVR or homogeneity quantifiers that are independent of target location. Furthermore, this variability made surprisingly little difference in terms of dose coverage of the prostate gland. Rectal doses varied between institutions according to the various implant techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized, outcome-based evaluation of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy is viable and appropriate. Such an approach could be reasonably used in the conduct of multiinstitutional trials used to study the efficacy of the procedure.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and utility of performing centralized postimplant analysis for transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) by conducting a pilot study that compares the results obtained from 125I implants conducted at five different institutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis was performed on 10 postimplant CT scans from each of five institutions. This analysis included the total implanted activity of 125I, ultrasound, and CT volumes of the prostate, target-volume ratios, dose homogeneity quantifiers, prostate dose coverage indices, and rectal doses. As a result of the uncertainty associated with the delineation of the prostatic boundaries on a CT scan, the contours were redrawn by a single, study center physician, and a repeat DVH analysis was performed. This provided the basis for comparison between institutions in terms of implant technique and quality. RESULTS: By comparing total activity to preimplant ultrasound volume we clearly demonstrated that differences exist in implant technique among these five institutions. The difficulty associated with determining glandular boundaries on CT scans was apparent, based upon the variability in prostate volumes drawn by the various investigators compared to those drawn by the study center physician. This made no difference, of course, in the TVR or homogeneity quantifiers that are independent of target location. Furthermore, this variability made surprisingly little difference in terms of dose coverage of the prostate gland. Rectal doses varied between institutions according to the various implant techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized, outcome-based evaluation of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy is viable and appropriate. Such an approach could be reasonably used in the conduct of multiinstitutional trials used to study the efficacy of the procedure.
Authors: Michael Muntener; Alexandru Patriciu; Doru Petrisor; Dumitru Mazilu; Herman Bagga; Louis Kavoussi; Kevin Cleary; Dan Stoianovici Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.649