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.     

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.     

Biologically effective dose for permanent prostate brachytherapy taking into account postimplant edema

PURPOSE: To study the influence of radiobiologic and physical parameters and parameters related to edema on the biologically effective dose (BED) for permanent prostate implants and to determine the optimal timing of seed reconstruction for BED calculation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: On the basis of the linear-quadratic model, an expression for the BED was derived, including the edema parameters. A set of parameter values was defined, and these parameter values were varied one at a time to examine the effect on the BED and the theoretically effective treatment time (t(eff)). A ratio epsilon was defined to investigate the optimal timing of seed reconstruction. RESULTS: The maximal BED decreases when the extent of lethal damage is smaller, the potential tumor doubling time is smaller, the half-life time of the seeds is shorter, and the magnitude of prostate volume increase is larger. For 125I, the optimal timing of seed reconstruction is 25 days after implantation. Seed reconstruction 1 day after the implantation results in an underestimation of the BED of at most 43%, depending on the magnitude and half-life of edema. An overestimation of the BED of at most 22% is calculated when seed reconstruction took place at the effective treatment time. CONCLUSION: The maximal BED depends strongly on the value of alpha, the potential tumor doubling time, and the choice of isotope. If prostate volume increase due to edema is not taken into account, the BED will be underestimated shortly after the implantation and overestimated if the calculations are based on images taken several months after implantation. The optimal timing of BED evaluation for 125I seed implants and typical prostate edema values is 25 days after implantation.     

Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry.

PURPOSE: An analysis of computed tomography (CT)-based dosimetry was performed to evaluate the variability of different observers' judgements in marking the prostate gland on CT films, and its effect on the parameters that characterise the prostate implantation quality. Accuracy of data entry by the first author in the process of dosimetry procedure has also been evaluated.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four observers were asked to evaluate the prostate volume on CT films for six different patients. Each observer repeated the evaluation six times. The sample of patients has a prostate volume in the range of 21.4-42.0 cc derived from transrectal ultrasound volume study. After an average period of 6 weeks of the I-125 implantation, all patients had CT scans. CT-based post-implant dosimetry was performed and the dose volume histograms DVHs were calculated to report the re-constructed prostate volume, Vp100, Vp150, Vp90 and D90. Comparison between the four observers' output was performed.RESULTS: Comparison between the four observers shows that each observer has a different way of estimating the prostate on CT films. Observers' precision also varies according to the prostate volume and the image quality. This can cause a variation in the resulting D90 value by up to 50%. Analysis of data entry shows a high degree of accuracy. The error of digitizing the prostate is +/-0.19 cc. This is correlated to an error of +/-0.78 Gy of the D90.CONCLUSION: The evaluation of prostate gland volume on CT films varies between different observers. This has an effect on the dosimetric indices that characterise the implant quality in particular the D90.     

Localization of linked 125I seeds in postimplant TRUS images for prostate brachytherapy dosimetry

PURPOSE: To demonstrate that (125)I seeds can be localized in transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images obtained with a high-resolution probe when the implant is performed with linked seeds and spacers. Adequate seed localization is essential to the implementation of TRUS-based intraoperative dosimetry for prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirteen preplanned peripherally loaded prostate implants were performed using (125)I seeds and spacers linked together in linear arrays that prevent seed migration and maintain precise seed spacing. A set of two-dimensional transverse images spaced at 0.50-cm intervals were obtained with a high-resolution TRUS probe at the conclusion of the procedure with the patient still under anesthesia. The image set extended from 1.0 cm superior to the base to 1.0 cm inferior to the apex. The visible echoes along each needle track were first localized and then compared with the known construction of the implanted array. The first step was to define the distal and proximal ends of each array. The visible echoes were then identified as seeds or spacers from the known sequence of the array. The locations of the seeds that did not produce a visible echo were interpolated from their known position in the array. A CT scan was obtained after implantation for comparison with the TRUS images. RESULTS: On average, 93% (range, 86-99%) of the seeds were visible in the TRUS images. However, it was possible to localize 100% of the seeds in each case, because the locations of the missing seeds could be determined from the known construction of the arrays. Two factors complicated the interpretation of the TRUS images. One was that the spacers also produced echoes. Although weak and diffuse, these echoes could be mistaken for seeds. The other was that the number of echoes along a needle track sometimes exceeded the number of seeds and spacers implanted. This was attributed to the overall length of the array, which was approximately 0.5 cm longer than the center-to-center distance between the first and last seed owing to the finite length of the seeds at the ends of the array. When this occurred, it was necessary to disregard either the most distal or most proximal echo, which produced a 0.5-cm uncertainty in the location of the array in the axial direction. For these reasons, simply localizing the visible echoes in the TRUS images did not guarantee the reliable identification of the seeds. CONCLUSION: Our results have demonstrated that a high percentage (>85%) of the implanted (125)I seeds can be directly visualized in postimplant TRUS images when the seeds and spacers are linked to preclude seed migration and rotation and when the images are obtained with a high-resolution TRUS probe. Moreover, it is possible to localize 100% of the seeds with the mechanism of linked seeds because the locations of the missing seeds can be determined from the known construction of the arrays.     

Postmastectomy CT-based electron beam radiotherapy: dosimetry, efficacy, and toxicity in 118 patients

PURPOSE: To evaluate the technique, dosimetry, acute and late toxicity, local control (LC), and overall survival (OS) with the use of computed tomography (CT)-based postmastectomy electron beam therapy (PMEBT) in high-risk patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1990 to 2000, 118 patients with pathologic stage I-IIIB breast cancer underwent PMEBT of the chest wall (CW) (n = 3), CW and supraclavicular fossa (SCV) (n = 63), CW, SCV, and internal mammary lymph nodes (IMN) (n = 51), and SCV+IMN (n = 1). Radiation therapy was delivered with an en face electron beam with a custom cutout. Treatment plans were all CT-based. The plans of 16 patients were retrospectively reviewed to analyze dosimetry data. A retrospective chart review was conducted to assess acute and late complications, LC, and OS. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 43 months, 5-year LC and OS were 91% and 61%, respectively. Sixty-one patients developed acute grade 3-4 skin toxicity, necessitating treatment breaks in 33 patients. Fifteen patients experienced a worsening of lymphedema, and 2 patients developed cardiac injury thought to be unrelated to radiotherapy. No patients developed symptomatic pneumonitis. Dosimetric analysis revealed heart and lung normal tissue complication probabilities of zero. Analysis of other clinically relevant dosimetric parameters revealed PMEBT to be comparable to previously reported techniques. CONCLUSION: Postmastectomy electron beam therapy is an effective way to deliver radiation to the postmastectomy chest wall and adjacent nodal sites. It offers acceptable acute and late toxicities and a high degree of local control given the high-risk population to which it is offered.     

Radioactive sources embedded in suture are associated with improved postimplant dosimetry in men treated with prostate brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reports using the retropubic and transperineal technique of prostate brachytherapy suggest that adequate radiation doses are required for good clinical results with I-125. After 3 years of using loose sources (LS), radioactive sources embedded in suture (SES) were introduced into our prostate brachytherapy technique. The purpose of the present report is to determine whether dosimetric quantifiers of implant adequacy were affected by the use of SES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 1999 and April 2000, 20 patients were treated with prostate brachytherapy alone with a preplanned, preloaded needle technique using LS. Between May 2000 and February 2001, 20 patients were treated with prostate brachytherapy alone with a preplanned, preloaded needle technique using SES. Dosimetric quantifiers (DQ) of implant adequacy were calculated using a computed tomography scan performed 1 month following prostate brachytherapy. DQ were compared between patients treated with LS and patients treated with SES. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics were similar for each group. Men treated with SES had slightly smaller prostate glands compared to men treated with LS. The mean total activity and activity per seed were similar for each group but the activity per unit volume was slightly higher for the SES group. Patients treated with SES were found to have significantly improved DQ compared to patients treated with LS. The mean V100 for patients treated with SES was 94.10% compared to 86.54% in those patients treated with LS (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience using preplanning and preloaded needles, the use of SES is associated with improved postimplant DQ.     

A comprehensive review of CT-based dosimetry parameters and biochemical control in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE: The American Brachytherapy Society recommends that postprostate implant dosimetry be performed on all patients undergoing transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) utilizing CT scan clinical target volume reconstructions. This study was undertaken to assess the recommended dosimetry parameters from a large cohort of patients undergoing TIPPB that would predict for PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven hundred nineteen consecutive patients with clinical stage T1/T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent TIPPB using either I-125 or Pd-103. Postimplant dosimetry was performed at 2 to 3 weeks with CT scan 3-dimensional reconstructions obtained on all patients. The D90 and D100 doses (defined as the minimum dose covering 90% and 100% of the prostate volume, respectively) and the V100 (defined as the percent of the prostate receiving 100% of the prescribed dose) were obtained for each patient. Regression analysis was performed on the D90 dose, D100 dose, and V100 to test for cutoff points that would predict for PSA-RFS, defined by a modification of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus panel statement. A cutoff value was found and was subjected to subset analysis to assess for its robustness. Treatment-related factors were tested for their ability to achieve dosimetry at or above the cutoff dose. RESULTS: The median follow-up from this cohort is 30 months (7-71 months) with a 48-month PSA-RFS of 89.5%. A D90 dose-response cutoff value > or =90% of the prescribed dose was identified. Prostate implants with a D90 dose <90% of the prescribed dose had an 80.4% 4-year PSA-RFS, while those with a D90 dose > or =90% of the prescribed dose had a 92.4% 4-year PSA-RFS (p = 0.001). No cutoff value was found for the V100 and D100 dose that predicted for PSA-RFS. Using the cutoff value, the D90 dose at 90% of the prescribed dose, a difference in 4-year PSA-RFS survival was identified for patients treated with I-125 (p = 0.04), Pd-103 (p = 0.01), TIPPB as monotherapy (p = 0.001), the addition of hormone therapy (p = 0.005), and TIPPB without hormone therapy (p = 0.001). The D90 dose was not significant for the group of patients treated with external beam radiotherapy and TIPPB (p = 0.15). The only significant finding from Cox regression analysis to predict for a poor D90 dose (<90% of the prescribed dose) was a CT/TRUS volume ratio >1.5 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The American Brachytherapy Society recommends that postimplant CT-based dosimetry be performed for all patients treated with TIPPB. This prospective study identified that the D90 dose > or =90% of the prescribed dose can be used as a factor for predicting PSA-RFS in patients treated with brachytherapy. A dose-response using the D90 dose was observed for several typical clinical treatment variations used in the practice of TIPPB. Using the D90 dose appears to be a satisfactory parameter for predicting outcome in patients treated with TIPPB.     

In vivo thermoluminescence dosimetry dose verification of transperineal 192Ir high-dose-rate brachytherapy using CT-based planning for the treatment of prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential of in vivo thermoluminescence dosimetry to estimate the accuracy of dose delivery in conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 50 LiF, TLD-100 cylindrical rods were calibrated in the dose range of interest and used as a batch for all fractions. Fourteen dosimeters for every treatment fraction were loaded in a plastic 4F catheter that was fixed in either one of the 6F needles implanted for treatment purposes or in an extra needle implanted after consulting with the patient. The 6F needles were placed either close to the urethra or in the vicinity of the median posterior wall of the prostate. Initial results are presented for 18 treatment fractions in 5 patients and compared to corresponding data calculated using the commercial treatment planning system used for the planning of the treatments based on CT images acquired postimplantation. RESULTS: The maximum observed mean difference between planned and delivered dose within a single treatment fraction was 8.57% +/- 2.61% (root mean square [RMS] errors from 4.03% to 9.73%). Corresponding values obtained after averaging results over all fractions of a patient were 6.88% +/- 4.93% (RMS errors from 4.82% to 7.32%). Experimental results of each fraction corresponding to the same patient point were found to agree within experimental uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: Experimental results indicate that the proposed method is feasible for dose verification purposes and suggest that dose delivery in transperineal high-dose-rate brachytherapy after CT-based planning can be of acceptable accuracy.     

Dosimetric feasibility of cone-beam CT-based treatment planning compared to CT-based treatment planning

PURPOSE: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images are currently used for positioning verification. However, it is yet unknown whether CBCT could be used in dose calculation for replanning in adaptive radiation therapy. This study investigates the dosimetric feasibility of CBCT-based treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Hounsfield unit (HU) values and profiles of Catphan, homogeneous/inhomogeneous phantoms, and various tissue regions of patients in CBCT images were compared to those in CT. The dosimetric consequence of the HU variation was investigated by comparing CBCT-based treatment plans to conventional CT-based plans for both phantoms and patients. RESULTS: The maximum HU difference between CBCT and CT of Catphan was 34 HU in the Teflon. The differences in other materials were less than 10 HU. The profiles for the homogeneous phantoms in CBCT displayed reduced HU values up to 150 HU in the peripheral regions compared to those in CT. The scatter and artifacts in CBCT became severe surrounding inhomogeneous tissues with reduced HU values up to 200 HU. The MU/cGy differences were less than 1% for most phantom cases. The isodose distributions between CBCT-based and CT-based plans agreed very well. However, the discrepancy was larger when CBCT was scanned without a bowtie filter than with bowtie filter. Also, up to 3% dosimetric error was observed in the plans for the inhomogeneous phantom. In the patient studies, the discrepancies of isodose lines between CT-based and CBCT-based plans, both 3D and IMRT, were less than 2 mm. Again, larger discrepancy occurred for the lung cancer patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of CBCT-based treatment planning. CBCT-based treatment plans were dosimetrically comparable to CT-based treatment plans. Dosimetric data in the inhomogeneous tissue regions should be carefully validated.     

Effect of image uncertainty on the dosimetry of trigeminal neuralgia irradiation

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to quantify the uncertainty in localization of the trigeminal nerve (TGN) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) and to determine the effect of this uncertainty on gamma-knife dose delivery. METHODS: An MR/CT test phantom with 9, 0.6-mm diameter, copper rings was devised. The absolute ring positions in stereotactic space were determined by the angiographic module of the LGP software. The standard deviation, sigma, in the difference between the absolute and MR-measured or CT-measured coordinates of the rings was determined. The trigeminal nerve in 52 previously treated patients was contoured and expanded by 1sigma and 2sigma margins to model the uncertainty in the location of the nerve. For gamma-knife treatment, a single isocenter was used and was located at the distal cisternal portion of the trigeminal nerve root. Irradiation methods included a 4-mm collimator, 90 Gy to isocenter and a 4&8-mm collimator, 70 Gy to isocenter. A patient outcome survey that sampled pain relief and morbidity was done. RESULTS: The MR coordinate sigma was 0.7 mm left-right, 0.8 mm anterior-posterior, and 0.6 mm superior-inferior, and the CT coordinate sigma was 0.4 mm left-right, 0.2 mm anterior-posterior, and 0.2 mm superior-inferior. A 45% higher dose line covered the TGN with the 4&8-mm method. No significant increase in pain reduction or morbidity occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty of target location by MRI is more than twice that found in CT imaging. The 4&8-mm collimator method covers the trigeminal root cross section with a higher isodose line than does the 4-mm method. This higher dose did not significantly reduce pain or increase morbidity.     

Effect of post-implant edema on prostate brachytherapy treatment margins

PURPOSE: To determine if postimplant prostate brachytherapy treatment margins calculated on Day 0 differ substantially from those calculated on Day 30. METHODS: Thirty patients with 1997 American Joint Commission on Cancer clinical stage T1-T2 prostatic carcinoma underwent prostate brachytherapy with I-125 prescribed to 144 Gy. Treatment planning methods included using loose seeds in a modified peripheral loading pattern and treatment margins (TMs) of 5-8 mm. Postimplant plain radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance scans were obtained 1-4 hours after implantation (Day 0). A second set of imaging studies was obtained at 30 days after implantation (Day 30) and similarly analyzed. Treatment margins were measured as the radial distance in millimeters from the prostate edge to the 100% isodose line. The TMs were measured and tabulated at 90 degrees intervals around the prostate periphery at 0.6-cm intervals. Each direction was averaged to obtain the mean anterior, posterior, left, and right margins. RESULTS: The mean overall TM increased from 2.6 mm (+/-2.3) on Day 0 to 3.5 mm (+/-2.4) on Day 30. The mean anterior margin increased from 1.2 mm on Day 0 to 1.8 mm on Day 30. The posterior margin increased from 1.2 mm on Day 0 to 2.8 mm on Day 30. The lateral treatment margins increased most over time, with mean right treatment margin increasing from 3.9 mm on Day 0 to 4.7 mm on Day 30. CONCLUSION: Treatment margins appear to be durable in the postimplant period, with a clinically insignificant increase from Day 0 to Day 30.     

The dependence of prostate postimplant dosimetric quality on CT volume determination

Purpose: The postoperative evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy requires a subjective determination of the implant volume. This work investigates the magnitude of the effect that various methods of treatment volume delineation have on dosimetric quality parameters for a treatment planning philosophy that defines a target volume as the prostate with a periprostatic margin.

Methods and Materials: Eight consecutive prostate brachytherapy patients with a prescribed dose of 145 Gy from ¹²⁵I as monotherapy comprised the study population. The prostate ultrasound volume was enlarged to a planning volume by an average factor of 1.8 to encompass probable extracapsular extension in the periprostatic region. For this cohort, the mean pretreatment parameters were 30.3 cm³ ultrasound volume, 51.8 cm³ planning volume, 131 seeds per patient, and 42.9 mCi total activity. On CT study sets obtained less than 2 hours postoperatively, target volumes were drawn using three methods: prostate plus a periprostatic margin, prostate only which excluded the puborectalis muscles, the periprostatic fat and the periprostatic venous plexus, and the preplanning ultrasound magnified to conform to the magnification factor of the postimplant CT scan. Three sets of 5 dosimetric quality parameters corresponding to the different volumetric approaches were calculated: V100, V150, and V200 which are the fractions of the target volume covered by 100, 150, and 200% of the prescribed dose, and D90 and D100, which are the minimal doses covering 90 and 100% of the target volume.

Results: The postoperative CT volume utilizing the prostate plus margin technique was comparable to the initial planning volume (mean 55.5 cm³ vs. 51.8 cm³, respectively) whereas those determined via superimposing the preplan ultrasound resulted in volumes nearly identical to the initial ultrasound evaluation (mean 32.4 cm³ vs. 30.3 cm³). The prostate only approach resulted in volumes approximately 25% larger than the ultrasound volume approach. Despite the volume determinations being markedly different, no significant differences between the approaches were appreciated for V100, V150, V200, and D90. Large variations seen in D100 were uncorrelated to any of the other parameters and make D100 unsuitable as a quality indicator.

Conclusions: In terms of a logarithmic measure, the variation between volumetric approach for V100, V150, V200, and D90 was less than one-fifth the variation of the CT volumes. These results which indicate relative independence of postimplant CT volume determination and dosimetric quality are only valid for a planning philosophy that includes the prostate with a periprostatic margin as the target volume.