Influence of prostate volume on dosimetry results in real-time 125I seed implantation

PURPOSE: Achieving a minimal dose of 140 Gy to 90% of the prostate (D90) on postimplant dosimetry has been shown to yield improved biochemical control by 125I brachytherapy, and a D90 >180 Gy can be associated with increased long-term toxicity of seed implantation. Significant enlargement of the prostate on postimplant CT compared with the ultrasound (US) volume at implantation (CT/US ratio) has been associated with lower dose results, but other factors predicting for high or low doses are not well established. We determined whether the prostate size at implantation influenced the CT/US ratio results affecting postimplant dosimetry or predicted for D90 values <140 or >180 Gy in patients implanted with 125I in a community hospital setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The dosimetry results from 501 patients from 33 community hospitals were analyzed after full dose 125I implantation. Implant radioactivity was obtained from reference tables relating millicuries to prostate volume (PV). Seeds were placed under real-time US guidance with peripheral weighting in a uniform method for all prostate sizes. CT-based dosimetry was performed 1 month after implantation. Dose-volume histogram parameters were analyzed for volume effects, including D90, the dose to 10% and 30% of the rectal wall, and the dose to 30% of the urethra and bladder. The PV was defined as small (<25 cm3), medium (25 to <40 cm3), or large (> or =40 cm3). RESULTS: The PV ranged from 9 to 79 cm3 (median 32.7). A D90 > or =140 Gy was achieved in 452 patients (90%). The median D90 was 164 Gy (range 90-230) and increased from 149.5 Gy in small prostates to 164 Gy in medium (p <0.001) and 176 Gy in large (p <0.001) prostates. A D90 <140 Gy occurred in 20% of small vs. 9% of medium and 3% of large prostates (p = 0.003). A D90 >180 Gy occurred in 7% of small and 10% of medium vs. 25% of large glands (p <0.001). The rectal dose increased significantly with an enlarging PV. The bladder and urethral doses increased from the small to medium PVs, although did not increase further in the large glands. The median CT/US ratios showed a significant volume relationship, decreasing with enlarging PVs, but were not associated with a D90 <140 or >140 Gy. The D90 results for <140 Gy and >140 Gy occurred at equal activities per volume. CONCLUSION: Ninety percent of patients implanted by community-level practitioners using reference tables and real-time US-guided implantation achieved a D90 outcome of > or =140 Gy. Significant differences in dose outcomes <140 Gy and >180 Gy occurred related to PV. Those with prostates <25 cm3 had a 20% frequency of D90 <140 Gy, unrelated to excessive postimplant volume enlargement or insufficient activity per reference table, suggesting that the activity-to-volume recommendations may not allow for much variance in final seed position. Such seed displacement may contribute to lower doses, most commonly in small glands. One may consider increasing the activity implanted in small prostates, because a D90 >180 Gy occurred in only 7% of these cases. Patients with glands >40 cm3 were 25% likely to have a D90 result >180 Gy and were at only 3% risk of a D90 <140 Gy. These patients may benefit from intraoperative dosimetry or a reduction in implant activity.     

Sequential evaluation of prostate edema after permanent seed prostate brachytherapy using CT-MRI fusion

PURPOSE: To analyze the extent and time course of prostate edema and its effect on dosimetry after permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients scheduled for permanent seed (125)I prostate brachytherapy agreed to a prospective study on postimplant edema. Implants were preplanned using transrectal ultrasonography. Postimplant dosimetry was calculated using computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) fusion on the day of the implant (Day 1) and Days 8 and 30. The prostate was contoured on MRI, and the seeds were located on CT. Factors investigated for an influence on edema were the number of seeds and needles, preimplant prostate volume, transitional zone index (transition zone volume divided by prostate volume), age, and prostate-specific antigen level. Prostate dosimetry was evaluated by the percentage of the prostate volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose (V(100)) and percentage of prescribed dose received by 90% of the prostate volume (D(90)). RESULTS: Prostate edema was maximal on Day 1, with the median prostate volume 31% greater than preimplant transrectal ultrasound volume (range, 0.93-1.72; p < 0.001) and decreased with time. It was 21% greater than baseline at Day 8 (p = 0.013) and 5% greater on Day 30 (p < 0.001). Three patients still had a prostate volume greater than baseline by Day 30. The extent of edema depended on the transition zone volume (p = 0.016) and the preplan prostate volume (p = 0.003). The median V(100) on Day 1 was 93.6% (range, 86.0-98.2%) and was 96.3% (range, 85.7-99.5%) on Day 30 (p = 0.079). Patients with a Day 1 V(100) >93% were less affected by edema resolution, showing a median increase in V(100) of 0.67% on Day 30 compared with 2.77% for patients with a V(100) <93 % on Day 1. CONCLUSION: Despite the extreme range of postimplant edema, the effect on dosimetry was less than expected. Dose coverage of the prostate was good for all patients during Days 1-30. Our data indicate that postimplant dosimetry on the day of implant is sufficient for patients with good dose coverage (Day 1 V(100) >93%).     

Prostate seed implantation using 3D-computer assisted intraoperative planning vs. a standard look-up nomogram: Improved target conformality with reduction in urethral and rectal wall dose

PURPOSE: To compare dosimetric outcomes between two real-time prostate seed implantation (PSI) techniques to evaluate the impact of three-dimensional (3D) intraoperative computer planning on target coverage, conformality, and preset urethral and rectal dose constraints. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred and fourteen patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent ultrasound-guided transperineal PSI of the prostate with (125)I sources as monotherapy. From 1999 to 2001, 69 patients were implanted in real-time using a standard look-up nomogram (Group 1: NG-PSI). All patients were implanted with a modified peripheral loading technique in which 75-80% of the calculated total activity was delivered to the gland periphery, with the remaining 20-25% activity placed in the gland interior, to achieve a prescribed dose (PD) of 144 Gy to cover the gland with acceptable homogeneity. No preoperative or intraoperative planning was performed to set dose constraints to the urethra or anterior rectal wall. Dosimetric outcome from this group was compared with 45 patients subsequently implanted after 2001 using an intraoperative 3D computer planning system (Group 2: 3D-PSI). A similar modified peripheral loading technique was used as an option in the planning system. Preoperative dose constraints were placed on the urethra (V150 < 35%), prostate (V100 > 95% of PD; D90: 140-180 Gy), and rectal wall (V110 < 1.5 cc) with real-time dosimetric feedback performed after peripheral loading. Manual dose optimization was performed to determine interior needle position and remaining number and placement of (125)I sources to adhere to urethral and rectal constraints and target coverage goals. Both groups underwent postimplant CT analysis to determine dosimetric outcome with regard toV100(prostate), D90(prostate), V150(urethra), and V110(rectum). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to determine variables impacting on dosimetric outcome. RESULTS: Analysis of preimplant and postimplant variables demonstrated no difference in the median preimplant gland volume (33 cc vs. 35 cc; p = 0.31), median mCi/seed strengths (0.4 vs. 0.45 mCi; p = 0.23), median V100 (94% vs. 94%), or median D90 at postimplant Day 30 (165 Gy vs. 160 Gy; p = 0.26) between Groups 1 and 2. However, for Group 2 (3D-PSI) the median total mCi implanted (26 vs. 33 mCi; p < 0.0001) and the median number of seeds implanted (67 vs. 83; p < 0.0001) were reduced substantially. The percent of patients exceeding a D90 > 180 Gy was reduced from 29% in Group 1 to 16% in Group 2 (p = 0.08). A reduction was observed in the percent of patients receiving a D90 < 140 Gy (14% Group 1 vs. 9% Group 2, p = 0.56). The median V150(urethra) for Group 2 was reduced dramatically with 3D-PSI compared with NG-PSI (63% vs. 17%; p < 0.0001). A V150(urethra) > 30% was observed in 88% in Group 1 compared with 29% in Group 2, p < 0.0001. Similarly, the median V110(rectum) for Group 1 was significantly higher than that in Group 2 (1.93 vs. 0.26 cc; p < 0.0001). The percent of patients with V110(rectum) > 1.5 cc in Group 1 and Group 2 was 57% and 13%, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of 3D computer intraoperative dose planning and optimization for prostate seed implantation resulted in dramatic reductions in urethral and rectal wall doses, while consistently producing excellent target coverage with reduced dose variability above 180 Gy and below 140 Gy, compared with the use of a standard look-up nomogram. Additionally, the reduction in total mCi and number of seeds needed to achieve improved conformality was substantial and may have implications for cost savings.     

Factors predicting for urinary incontinence after prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE: To define risk factors that predict for urinary incontinence after (125)I prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Urinary incontinence after (125)I prostate brachytherapy was evaluated using a patient self-assessment questionnaire based on the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 2). Grade 0 is defined as no incontinence; Grade 1 incontinence occurs with coughing, sneezing, or laughing; Grade 2 is spontaneous incontinence with some control; and Grade 3 is no control. One hundred fifty-three patients received monotherapy (145 Gy) (125)I implants between October 1996 and December 2001, and 112 (75%) responded to our survey. Median follow-up was 47 months (range, 14-74 months). Patient characteristics included a preimplant prostate-specific antigen < or =10, Gleason score < or =6, and stage < or =T2b. CT-based postimplant dosimetry was analyzed approximately 30 days after the procedure, and dose-volume histograms of the prostate and the prostatic urethra were generated based on contoured volumes. Dosimetric parameters evaluated as predictive factors for incontinence included the prostate volume; total activity implanted; number of needles; number of seeds; seed activity; urethral D(5), D(10), D(25), D(50), D(75), and D(90) doses; prostate D(90) doses; and prostate V(100), V(200), and V(300). Clinical parameters evaluated included age, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, preimplant International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), and length of follow-up. RESULTS: Urethral D(10) dose and preimplant I-PSS predicted for urinary incontinence on multivariate analysis (p = 0.002 and p = 0.003, respectively). Twenty-eight patients reported Grade 1 incontinence (26%), and 5 patients reported Grade 2 (5%). Patients with Grade 1 and 2 incontinence were analyzed together, because of the small number of patients who experienced Grade 2. No patients reported Grade 3 incontinence. Mean urethral D(10) was 314 +/- 78 Gy in patients with Grade 0 compared with 394 +/- 147 Gy in patients with Grades 1, 2 incontinence (p = 0.002). The incidence of incontinence doubled as the urethral D(10) dose increased above 450 Gy. Patients with Grade 0 had a mean preimplant I-PSS score of 6.6 +/- 4.5 compared with 10.0 +/- 6.4 for Grades 1, 2 (p = 0.003). A significant increase in the incidence of incontinence was noted when the preimplant I-PSS was greater than 15. No relationship was noted between incontinence and prostate volume, total activity implanted, or the number of needles used (p = 0.83, p = 0.89, p = 0.36, respectively). CONCLUSION: Urethral D(10) dose and preimplant I-PSS are predictive for patients at higher risk of urinary incontinence. To decrease the risk of this complication, an effort should be made to keep the urethral D(10) dose as close to the prescribed dose as possible, and the preimplant I-PSS should be thoroughly evaluated in an attempt to select patients with scores less than 15.     

The impact of postimplant edema on the urethral dose in prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE: The objective of this work is to determine the effect of timing of the postimplant CT scan on the assessment of the urethral dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A preimplant CT scan and two postimplant CT scans were obtained on 50 patients who received I-125 prostate seed implants. The first postimplant CT scan was obtained on the day of the implant; the second usually 4 to 9 weeks later (mean: 46 +/- 23 days; range: 27-135 days). The urethra was localized in each postimplant CT scan and a dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the urethral dose was compiled from each CT study. The relative decrease in the prostate volume between the first and second postimplant CT scans was determined by contouring the prostate in each CT scan. RESULTS: The prostate volume decreased by 27 +/- 9% (mean +/- SD) between the first and second postimplant CT scans. As a result, the averaged urethral dose derived from the second CT scan was about 30% higher. In terms of dose, the D(10), D(25), D(50), D(75), and D(90) urethral doses derived from the second CT scan were 90 +/- 56 Gy, 81 +/- 49 Gy, 67 +/- 42 Gy, 49 +/- 44 Gy, and 40 +/- 46 Gy higher, respectively. The increase in the urethral dose is correlated with the decrease in the prostate volume (R = 0.57, rho < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The assessment of the urethral dose depends upon the timing of the postimplant CT scan. The mean D(10) dose derived from the CT scans obtained at 46 +/- 23 days postimplant was 90 +/- 56 Gy higher than that derived from the CT scans obtained on the day of the implant. Because of this large difference, the timing of the postimplant CT scan needs to be specified when specifying dose thresholds for urethral morbidity.     

The effect of disease and treatment-related factors on biopsy results after prostate brachytherapy: implications for treatment optimization

BACKGROUND: Posttreatment prostate biopsy is a method of assessing local control after irradiation for prostate carcinoma. An analysis of the effect of disease- and treatment-related factors on biopsy results after prostate brachytherapy was performed to aid in patient selection and treatment optimization. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-eight patients underwent posttreatment prostate biopsy (6-8 cores) 2 years after brachytherapy alone without external beam irradiation. Follow-up ranged from 24 to 111 months (median, 43 months). Implants were performed using a real-time ultrasound guided technique with the isotopes (125)I in 186 and (103)Pd in 82 patients. Ninety-eight patients underwent hormonal therapy (HT) 3 months before and 2-3 months after implant. Implant dose was defined as the D90 (dose delivered to 90% of the gland from the dose volume histogram generated using 1-month computed tomography-based dosimetry). RESULTS: Overall, 89% of patients (238 of 268) had negative biopsies. A positive biopsy was a predictor of biochemical failure. Patients with a positive biopsy had a 5-year freedom from biochemical failure of 40% versus 76% for patients with a negative biopsy (P = 0.0003). Univariate and multivariate analysis found that risk group, HT, and implant dose significantly affected biopsy outcome. Patients with low risk features (prostate specific antigen [PSA] 10 ng/mL or Gleason score >/= 7 or classification T2b or higher) (n = 164) (P = 0.008). Hormonal therapy was associated with a negative biopsy rate of 98% versus 84% for implant alone (P = 0.003). Patients receiving a high implant dose (D90 >/= 140 grays [Gy] for (125)I or >/= 100 Gy for (103)Pd) (n = 174) had a negative biopsy rate of 95% versus 77% for those receiving a low dose (D90 < 140 Gy for (125)I or < 100 Gy for (103)Pd) (n = 87; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy results support the use of brachytherapy without external beam irradiation for patients with low risk features and highlight the importance of achieving an adequate implant dose.     

Prostate brachytherapy in patients with prostate volumes ≥ 50 cm: dosimetic analysis of implant quality

Objectives: Permanent implantation with ¹²⁵I in patients with localized prostate cancer who have prostate volumes ≥ 50 cm³ is often technically difficult owing to pubic arch interference. The objective of this study was to describe dosimetry outcomes in a group of patients who were implanted using the real-time ultrasound-guided technique who had prostate volumes ≥ 50 cm³.

Materials and Methods: A total of 331 patients received an ¹²⁵I prostate seed implant from January 1, 1995, to June 1, 1999, of whom 66 (20%) had prostate volumes ≥ 50 cm³ at the time of the procedure. The real-time seed implant method was used in all patients and consisted of intraoperative planning and real-time seed placement using a combination of axial and sagittal ultrasound imaging. Pubic arch interference was managed using an extended lithotomy position or by angling the tip of the ultrasound probe in an anterior direction. No preimplant pubic arch CT scan study was performed and no patients were excluded from treatment because of prostate size. Implant quality was assessed using CT-based dosimetry performed 1 month postimplant. Dose–volume histograms for the prostate, bladder, rectum, and urethra volumes were generated. The target dose for these implants was 160 Gy and an adequate implant was defined as the dose delivered to 90% of the prostate (D90) ≥ 140 Gy. The dose delivered to 95% of the prostate (D95) and doses to 30% of the rectal (DRECT30) and urethral (DURE30) volumes were also calculated.

Results: Prostate volumes in the 66 patients ranged from 50 to 93 cm³ (median 57, mean 61 cm³). Total activity implanted was 27.8–89.1 mCi (median 57 mCi), with a range in activity per seed of 0.36–0.56 mCi (median 0.4 mCi). The prostate D90s and D95s ranged from 13,245 to 22,637 cGy (median 18,750) and 11,856 to 20,853 cGy (median 16,725), respectively. Only one patient (1.5%) had a D90 < 140 Gy. The DURE30 values ranged from 15,014 to 27,800 cGy (median 20,410) and the DRECT30 values were 3137–9910 cGy (median 5515).

Conclusion: Implantation of the large prostate can be accomplished using the real-time method. A total of 98.5% of the patients receive a high-quality implant. In addition, these implants should not put patients at increased risk for significant urinary and bowel complications because urethral and rectal doses can be kept at acceptable levels.     

A comparison of permanent prostate brachytherapy techniques: preplan vs. hybrid interactive planning with postimplant analysis

PURPOSE: To compare preparation time, procedure time in the operating room, equipment needs, and Day 0 postimplant dosimetry between two different Mick implant techniques performed at a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred consecutive monotherapy patients treated from 1999 to 2000 with 125I transperineal permanent implantation of the prostate using an afterloading Mick applicator were evaluated. The first 40 patients were treated with a preplanned modified peripheral loading Mick technique. The next 60 were treated with a hybrid interactive image-guided Mick technique. The analysis included planning the following: ultrasound volume, time required of preplanning, Day 0 CT volume, number of seeds, number of needles, activity per seed, total activity of the implant, and procedure time. Dosimetric parameters included D(90), V(100), and V(150). RESULTS: Mean planning ultrasound volume (33 vs. 37 cc), Day 0 CT volume (49 vs. 47 cc), mCi/seed (0.30 vs. 0.34 mCi/seed), number of seeds (121 vs. 96), total activity of the implant (36 vs. 32 mCi), D(90) (132 vs. 149 Gy), V(100) (86% vs. 91%), and V(150) (51% vs. 38%) were comparable. Significant differences (p < 0.01) were noted in mean preplan time (30 vs. 7 min), number of needles (32 vs. 19), and procedure time (90 vs. 40 min). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid interactive Mick prostate brachytherapy consistently reduces preplanning time, procedure time, and number of needles used, reducing patient treatment time and costs while maintaining excellent dosimetric coverage. Use of hybrid interactive Mick prostate brachytherapy results in improved therapeutic ratios, i.e., maintains Day 0 D(90) >140 Gy, V(100) >90%, and V(150) <40%, without the need for sophisticated three-dimensional intraoperative planning technology.     

A Dose–Response Study for I-125 Prostate Implants

Purpose: No dose–response study has ever been performed for I-125 prostate implants using modern techniques of implant evaluation and modern treatment outcome end points. The amount of activity per volume implanted was increased over time based on review of postimplant dosimetry. This resulted in different delivered dose levels. This study explores the relationship between dose, biochemical failure, and biopsy results.Materials and Methods: 134 patients with T1–T2 prostate cancer were implanted with I-125 radioactive seeds and followed from 12 to 74 months (median: 32) postimplant. No patient received external beam irradiation or hormonal therapy. All patients implanted with I-125 had Gleason scores ≤6. One month postimplant, a CT-based three-dimensional dosimetric evaluation was performed on all patients. Using TG43 guidelines, dose–volume histograms were calculated. The dose delivered to the gland was defined as the D90 (dose delivered to 90% of prostate tissue as defined by CT). The D90s ranged from 26.8 to 256.3 Gy (median: 140.8 Gy). Biochemical failure was defined as two consecutive rises in prostate specific antigen (PSA) or a nadir level above 1.0 ng/ml. Posttreatment prostate biopsies (six to eight core samples) were routinely performed at 2 years postimplant.Results: Improvements in freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were seen with increasing D90 levels. The 4-year FFBF rates for patients with D90 values <100 Gy, 100–119.9 Gy, 120–13.9 Gy, 140–159.9 Gy, and ≥160 Gy were 53, 82, 80, 95, and 89%, respectively (p = 0.02). Patients receiving a D90 <140 Gy (65 patients) were similar with respect to presenting disease prognostic factors to those receiving a D90 ≥140 Gy (69 patients). Patients receiving a D90 <140 Gy had a 4-year FFBF rate of 68% compared to a rate of 92% for those receiving a D90 ≥140 Gy (p = 0.02). Two-year posttreatment biopsies were negative in 70% (33 of 47) of patients with a D90 < 140 Gy compared to a rate of 83% (24 of 29) in patients with a D90 ≥140 Gy (p = 0.2). A multivariate analysis using dose, PSA, score, and stage revealed that dose was the most significant predictor of biochemical failure (p = 0.001). This dose response was more pronounced in patients presenting with PSA levels >10 ng/ml. In these patients, the 4-year FFBF rates were 51 and 100% for the low and high dose groups, respectively (p = 0.009) and the negative biopsy rates were 64% (14 of 22) and 100% (8 of 8), respectively (p = 0.05). In patients with presenting PSA <10 ng/ml, the 4-year FFBF rates were 82 and 88% for the low and high dose groups, respectively (p = 0.29).Conclusion: A dose response was observed at a level of 140 Gy. Adequate I -125 implants should deliver a dose of 140–160 Gy using TG43 guidlines.     

Urinary morbidity following ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate seed implantation.

PURPOSE: To assess the urinary morbidity experienced by patients undergoing ultrasound-guided, permanent transperineal seed implantation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between September 1992 and September 1997, 693 consecutive patients presented with a diagnosis of clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate, and were treated with ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent brachytherapy (TPIPB). Ninety-three patients are excluded from this review, having received neoadjuvant antiandrogen therapy. TPIPB was performed with 125I in 165 patients and with 103Pd in 435 patients. Patients treated with implant alone received 160 Gy with 125I (pre TG43) or 120 Gy with 103Pd. One hundred two patients received preimplant, pelvic external beam radiation (XRT) to a dose of either 41.4 or 45 Gy because of high-risk features including PSA > or = 10 and/or Gleason score > or = 7. Combined modality patients received 120 Gy and 90 Gy, respectively for 125I or 103Pd. All patients underwent postimplant cystoscopy and placement of an indwelling Foley catheter for 24-48 h. Follow-up was at 5 weeks after implant, every 3 months for the first 2 years, and then every 6 months for subsequent years. Patients completed AUA urinary symptom scoring questionnaires at initial consultation and at each follow-up visit. Urinary toxicity was classified by the RTOG toxicity scale with the following adaptations; grade 1 urinary toxicity was symptomatic nocturia or frequency requiring none or minimal medical intervention such as phenazopyridine; grade 2 urinary toxicity was early obstructive symptomatology requiring alpha-blocker therapy; and grade 3 toxicity was considered that requiring indwelling catheters or posttreatment transurethral resection of the prostate for symptom relief. Log-rank analysis and Chi-square testing was performed to assess AUA score, prostate size, isotope selection, and the addition of XRT as possible prognosticators of postimplant urinary toxicity. The prostate volume receiving 150% of the prescribed dose (V150) was studied in patients to assess its correlation with urinary toxicity. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 37 months (range 6-68). Within the first 60 days, 37.3% of the patients reported grade 1 urinary toxicity, 41% had grade 2, and 2.2% had grade 3 urinary toxicity. By 6 months, 21.4% still reported grade 1 urinary toxicity, whereas 12.8% and 3% complained of grade 2 and 3 urinary difficulties, respectively. Patients with a preimplant AUA score < or = 7 had significantly less grade II toxicity at 60 days compared to those with an AUA score of >7 (32% vs. 59.2%, respectively, p = 0.001). Similarly, prostatic volumes < or = 35 cc had a significantly lower incidence of grade II urinary toxicity (p = 0.001). There was no difference in toxicity regarding the isotope used (p = 0.138 at 60 days, p = 0.45 at 6 months) or the addition of preimplant XRT (p = 0.069 at 60 days, p = 0.84 at 6 months). Twenty-eight patients (4.7%) underwent TURP after 3 isotope half-lives for protracted obstructive symptoms. Five of these men (17%) developed stress incontinence following TURP, but all patients experienced relief of their obstructive symptoms without morbidity at last follow-up. The percent of the prostate receiving 150% of the prescribed dose (V150) did not predict urinary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: TPIPB is well tolerated but associated with mild to moderate urinary morbidity. Pretreatment prostatic volume and AUA scoring were shown to significantly predict for grade 2 toxicity while the use of preimplant, pelvic XRT and isotope selection did not. Patients undergoing TURP for protracted symptoms following TPIPB did well with a 17% risk of developing stress incontinence. V150 did not help identify patients at risk for urinary morbidity. As transperineal prostate implantation is used more frequently the associated toxicities and the definition of possible pretreatment prognostic factors is necessary to     

Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound and computed tomography before and after permanent prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE: To quantify prostate volume (pvol) changes with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) immediately after permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) and to correlate these changes with postimplant computed tomography (CT) volumetrics. To provide data relevant to evaluating the potential of TRUS-based image fusion for intraoperative dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between July 2000 and January 2003, 177 patients underwent (125)I PPB monotherapy at our institution, and 165 patients provided research authorization. A total of 136 patients (82%) completed 4 imaging studies: planning TRUS, intraoperative pre- and postimplant TRUS, and CT. RESULTS: Mean planning TRUS pvol was 38.7 +/- 11.7 cc standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI) (36.7, 40.7). Mean intraoperative TRUS pvol preimplant was 37.1 +/- 11.7 cc SD, 95% CI (35.1, 39.0), and postimplant was 44.5 +/- 15.1 cc SD, 95% CI (42.0, 47.1). The mean ratio of postimplant:preimplant intraoperative TRUS pvols was 1.2 +/- 0.2 SD, 95% CI (1.18, 1.24), and the difference in mean values was 7.5 cc (p < 0.0001). CT performed within 1 day revealed a mean pvol of 47.9 +/- 15.7 cc SD, 95% CI (45.2, 50.5). The mean volumetric ratio of CT to postimplant TRUS pvol was 1.13 +/- 0.36, 95% CI (1.07-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas mean preimplant step-section TRUS pvol measurements are similar, postimplant TRUS and CT measurements have greater variability that depend on initial pvol. CT-based pvol measurements determined a mean of 10.6 hours after implant were more likely to be identical to those of immediate postimplant TRUS in prostates >33 cc. These data are relevant for establishing accuracy in image-fusion based approaches being investigated for real-time intraoperative PPB dosimetry.     

Is there a role for postimplant dosimetry after real-time dynamic permanent prostate brachytherapy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the correlation of real-time dynamic prostate brachytherapy (RTDPB) dosimetry and traditional postimplant dosimetry for permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 164 patients underwent RTDPB for clinically confined prostate cancer. Of these 164 patients, 45 were implanted with 103Pd and 119 with 125I. Additionally, 44 patients underwent combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy and 120 patients underwent brachytherapy alone. The postimplant dosimetry with computed tomography was performed at 4 weeks and compared with the RTDPB dose plan using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The millicurie/gram of the prostate volume and the percentage of the minimal dose to 90% of the prostate relative to the prescribed implant dose (D90%) of the RTDPB patients was compared with 400 patients treated with a free-seed technique. RESULTS: The mean D90% achieved in the operating room and on the 3-week dose plan was 109% (range, 93-139%) and 105% (range, 88-140), respectively. The mean percentage of prostate volume receiving 100% of the prescribed minimal peripheral dose (V100) achieved in the operating room and on the 3-week dose plan was 93% (range, 78-98%) and 91% (range, 64-98%), respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient for each calculated relationship was 0.586 for D90 (p<0.001), 1.19 for V100 (p=0.135), 0.692 for the urethral D90 (p<0.001), 0.602 for the maximal rectal dose (p<0.001), 0.546 for D90 with 125I (p<0.001), and 0.565 for D90 with 103Pd (p<0.001). A 12% decrease was noted in the millicurie/gram of the isotope, with a 2.5% increase in the D90 comparing RTDPB and the free-seed technique. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated a correlation between the dose assessment obtained intraoperatively and postoperatively at 3 weeks. With reliable dose data available in the operating room, our results question the need for routine postimplant dose studies. Furthermore, patients treated with RTDPB received less radioactivity per gram of the prostate with a corresponding small increase in the D90. Future analyses will assess variations in the inverse dose planning rules and the clinical correlation of patients undergoing RTDPB vs. older techniques for toxicity and biochemical outcomes.     

Impact of postimplant edema on V(100) and D(90) in prostate brachytherapy: can implant quality be predicted on day 0?

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of edema on the dosimetric parameters V(100) (percentage of prostate volume that received a dose equal to or greater than the prescribed dose) and D(90) (minimal dose delivered to 90% of prostate volume) in 125I prostate brachytherapy and to determine whether the edema can be used to predict implant quality on the day of the implant (Day 0). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty consecutive patients treated with (125)I implants who had two postimplant CT scans were selected for this study. The mean interval between the studies was 46 +/- 23 days. The implants were preplanned to deliver 150 Gy to the prostate plus a 3-5-mm symmetric dose margin using peripherally loaded 0.4-0.6-mCi (NIST-99) (125)I seeds. A dose-volume histogram was compiled for each postimplant CT scan. The V(100) and D(90) from the first and second CT scans were compared to determine the effect of edema on these parameters. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to define the linear relationships for predicting the V(100) or D(90) at 30-60 days after implant from the magnitude of the edema and the values of V(100) and D(90) on Day 0. RESULTS: V(100) and D(90) increased by 5% +/- 6% and 15% +/- 17%, respectively, during the interval between the first and second postimplant CT scans. The mean edema was 1.53 +/- 0.20. The increases in V(100) and D(90) were found to be proportional to the edema and the values of V(100) and D(90) on Day 0. The increase in V(100) was also found to depend on the width of the preplan dose margin. Linear relationships were derived that predict the V(100) and D(90) at 30-60 days after implant with a standard error of +/-4% and +/-24 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSION: V(100) and D(90) increased by 5% +/- 6% and 15% +/- 17%, respectively, during the first 30-60 days after implant. The results of a multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the increases in V(100) and D(90) were proportional to both the magnitude of the edema and the values of these parameters on Day 0. The relationships derived by linear regression analysis predict V(100) and D(90) at 30-60 days after implant to within +/-4% and +/-24 Gy, respectively. However, predicting the 30-60-day V(100) and D(90) on Day 0 is a poor substitute for obtaining a 30-60-day CT scan, because the uncertainty in the predicted values is greater by a factor of > or =2. Nevertheless, on average, the predicted values should provide a more reliable estimate of the actual V(100) and D(90) than the Day 0 values that ignore the effect of edema altogether. The increase in V(100) was also found to depend on the width of the preplan dose margin; therefore, our results for V(100) are only valid for implants planned with a 3-5-mm margin.     

MR and CT image fusion for postimplant analysis in permanent prostate seed implants

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of two different image-based postimplant dosimetry methods in permanent seed implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between October 1999 and October 2002, 150 patients with low-risk prostate carcinoma were treated with (125)I and (103)Pd in our institution. A CT-MRI image fusion protocol was used in 21 consecutive patients treated with exclusive brachytherapy. The accuracy and reproducibility of the method was calculated, and then the CT-based dosimetry was compared with the CT-MRI-based dosimetry using the dose-volume histogram (DVH) related parameters recommended by the American Brachytherapy Society and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. RESULTS: Our method for CT-MRI image fusion was accurate and reproducible (median shift <1 mm). Differences in prostate volume were found, depending on the image modality used. Quality assurance DVH-related parameters strongly depended on the image modality (CT vs. CT-MRI): V(100) = 82% vs. 88%, p < 0.05. D(90) = 96% vs. 115%, p < 0.05. Those results depend on the institutional implant technique and reflect the importance of lowering inter- and intraobserver discrepancies when outlining prostate and organs at risk for postimplant dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography-MRI fused images allow accurate determination of prostate size, significantly improving the dosimetric evaluation based on DVH analysis. This provides a consistent method to judge a prostate seed implant's quality.     

Importance of the CT/MRI fusion method as a learning tool for CT-based postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the CT-based and CT/MRI fusion-based postimplant dosimetry after permanent prostate brachytherapy and to evaluate the improvement in CT-based dosimetry by physicians with or without experience in using the CT/MRI fusion method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive patients agreed to participate in a prospective study. The prostate contours from CT/MRI fusion are the gold standard for determining the prostate volume and dose volume histogram (DVH). CT-based postimplant dosimetries were performed by two physicians. Observer 1 was a radiologist who had never used CT/MRI fusion method for postimplant dosimetric analysis. Observer 2 was a radiation oncologist experienced in postimplant analysis using the CT/MRI fusion method. The prostate dosimetry was evaluated by prostate D90 and V100. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the mean prostate volumes between the two observers and the CT/MRI fusion data. However, the correlation coefficient value for observer 2 (R(2)=0.932) was greater than that for observer 1 (R(2)=0.793). The D90 and V100 values as evaluated by the two observers were significantly underestimated in comparison to those evaluated using the CT/MRI fusion methods. The DVH related parameters were underestimated more frequently by observer 1 than by observer 2: (prostate D90: 99.56% for observer 1, 102.97% for observer 2, 109.37% for CT/MRI fusion. Prostate V100: 88.12% for observer 1, 90.14% for observer 2, 91.91% for CT/MRI fusion). CONCLUSIONS: The difference in the mean value in D90 and V100 by observer 1 was significantly greater than that for observer 2. These findings suggest that the CT/MRI fusion method provides accurate feedback which thereby improves CT-based postimplant dosimetry for prostate brachytherapy.