skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Bypassing the learning curve in permanent seed implants using state-of-the-art technology

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to demonstrate, based on clinical postplan dose distributions, that technology can be used efficiently to eliminate the learning curve associated with permanent seed implant planning and delivery. Methods and Materials: Dose distributions evaluated 30 days after the implant of the initial 22 consecutive patients treated with permanent seed implants at two institutions were studied. Institution 1 (I1) consisted of a new team, whereas institution 2 (I2) had performed more than 740 preplanned implantations over a 9-year period before the study. Both teams had adopted similar integrated systems based on three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasonography, intraoperative dosimetry, and an automated seed delivery and needle retraction system (FIRST, Nucletron). Procedure time and dose volume histogram parameters such as D90, V100, V150, V200, and others were collected in the operating room and at 30 days postplan. Results: The average target coverage from the intraoperative plan (V100) was 99.4% for I1 and 99.9% for I2. D90, V150, and V200 were 191.4 Gy (196.3 Gy), 75.3% (73.0%), and 37.5% (34.1%) for I1 (I2) respectively. None of these parameters shows a significant difference between institutions. The postplan D90 was 151.2 Gy for I1 and 167.3 Gy for I2, well abovemore » the 140 Gy from the Stock et al. analysis, taking into account differences at planning, results in a p value of 0.0676. The procedure time required on average 174.4 min for I1 and 89 min for I2. The time was found to decrease with the increasing number of patients. Conclusion: State-of-the-art technology enables a new brachytherapy team to obtain excellent postplan dose distributions, similar to those achieved by an experienced team with proven long-term clinical results. The cost for bypassing the usual dosimetry learning curve is time, with increasing team experience resulting in shorter treatment times.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [2];  [2];  [2];  [3];  [3];  [3];  [2]
  1. Departement de Radio-oncologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Hotel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec, PQ (Canada). E-mail: beaulieu@phy.ulaval.ca
  2. Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB (Canada)
  3. Departement de Radio-oncologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Hotel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec, PQ (Canada)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20850296
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 67; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.019; PII: S0360-3016(06)01256-9; Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BRACHYTHERAPY; DOSIMETRY; LEARNING; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIATION SOURCE IMPLANTS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY

Citation Formats

Beaulieu, Luc, Evans, Dee-Ann Radford, Aubin, Sylviane, Angyalfi, Steven, Husain, Siraj, Kay, Ian, Martin, Andre-Guy, Varfalvy, Nicolas, Vigneault, Eric, and Dunscombe, Peter. Bypassing the learning curve in permanent seed implants using state-of-the-art technology. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.019.
Beaulieu, Luc, Evans, Dee-Ann Radford, Aubin, Sylviane, Angyalfi, Steven, Husain, Siraj, Kay, Ian, Martin, Andre-Guy, Varfalvy, Nicolas, Vigneault, Eric, & Dunscombe, Peter. Bypassing the learning curve in permanent seed implants using state-of-the-art technology. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.019.
Beaulieu, Luc, Evans, Dee-Ann Radford, Aubin, Sylviane, Angyalfi, Steven, Husain, Siraj, Kay, Ian, Martin, Andre-Guy, Varfalvy, Nicolas, Vigneault, Eric, and Dunscombe, Peter. Mon . "Bypassing the learning curve in permanent seed implants using state-of-the-art technology". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.019.
@article{osti_20850296,
title = {Bypassing the learning curve in permanent seed implants using state-of-the-art technology},
author = {Beaulieu, Luc and Evans, Dee-Ann Radford and Aubin, Sylviane and Angyalfi, Steven and Husain, Siraj and Kay, Ian and Martin, Andre-Guy and Varfalvy, Nicolas and Vigneault, Eric and Dunscombe, Peter},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The aim of this study was to demonstrate, based on clinical postplan dose distributions, that technology can be used efficiently to eliminate the learning curve associated with permanent seed implant planning and delivery. Methods and Materials: Dose distributions evaluated 30 days after the implant of the initial 22 consecutive patients treated with permanent seed implants at two institutions were studied. Institution 1 (I1) consisted of a new team, whereas institution 2 (I2) had performed more than 740 preplanned implantations over a 9-year period before the study. Both teams had adopted similar integrated systems based on three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasonography, intraoperative dosimetry, and an automated seed delivery and needle retraction system (FIRST, Nucletron). Procedure time and dose volume histogram parameters such as D90, V100, V150, V200, and others were collected in the operating room and at 30 days postplan. Results: The average target coverage from the intraoperative plan (V100) was 99.4% for I1 and 99.9% for I2. D90, V150, and V200 were 191.4 Gy (196.3 Gy), 75.3% (73.0%), and 37.5% (34.1%) for I1 (I2) respectively. None of these parameters shows a significant difference between institutions. The postplan D90 was 151.2 Gy for I1 and 167.3 Gy for I2, well above the 140 Gy from the Stock et al. analysis, taking into account differences at planning, results in a p value of 0.0676. The procedure time required on average 174.4 min for I1 and 89 min for I2. The time was found to decrease with the increasing number of patients. Conclusion: State-of-the-art technology enables a new brachytherapy team to obtain excellent postplan dose distributions, similar to those achieved by an experienced team with proven long-term clinical results. The cost for bypassing the usual dosimetry learning curve is time, with increasing team experience resulting in shorter treatment times.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.019},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 1,
volume = 67,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • Our aim in this work was to study the potential dosimetric effect of prostate edema on the accuracy of conventional pre- and post-implant dosimetry for prostate seed implants using the newly introduced {sup 131}Cs seed, whose radioactive decay half-life ({approx}9.7 days) is directly comparable to the average edema resolution half-life ({approx}10 days) observed previously by Waterman et al. for {sup 125}I implants [Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 41, 1069-1077 (1998)]. A systematic calculation of the relative dosimetry effect of prostate edema on the {sup 131}Cs implant was performed by using an analytic solution obtained previously [Int. J. Radiat. Oncol.more » Biol. Phys. 47, 1405-1419 (2000)]. It was found that conventional preimplant dosimetry always overestimates the true delivered dose as it ignores the temporary increase of the interseed distance caused by edema. The overestimation for {sup 131}Cs implants ranged from 1.2% (for a small edema with a magnitude of 10% and a half-life of 2 days) to approximately 45% (for larger degree edema with a magnitude of 100% and a half-life of 25 days). The magnitude of pre- and post-implant dosimetry error for {sup 131}Cs implants was found to be similar to that of {sup 103}Pd implants for typical edema characteristics (magnitude <100%, and half-life <25 days); both of which are worse compared to {sup 125}I implants. The preimplant dosimetry error for {sup 131}Cs implants cannot be compensated effectively without knowing the edema characteristics before the seed implantation. On the other hand, the error resulted from a conventional post-implant dosimetry can be minimized (to within {+-}6%) for {sup 131}Cs implants if the post-implant dosimetry is performed at 10{+-}2 days post seed implantation. This 'optimum' post-implant dosimetry time is shorter than those determined previously for the {sup 103}Pd and {sup 125}I implants at 16{+-}4 days and 6{+-}1 weeks, respectively.« less
  • Recently, {sup 131}Cs seeds have been introduced for prostate permanent seed implants. This type of seed has a relatively short half-life of 9.7 days and has its most prominent emitted photon energy peaks in the 29-34 keV region. Traditionally, 145 and 125 Gy have been prescribed for {sup 125}I and {sup 103}Pd seed prostate implants, respectively. Since both the half-life and dosimetry characteristics of {sup 131}Cs seed are quite different from those of {sup 125}I and {sup 103}Pd, the appropriate prescription dose for {sup 131}Cs seed prostate implant may well be different. This study was designed to use a linearmore » quadratic radiobiological model to determine an appropriate dose prescription scheme for permanent {sup 131}Cs seed prostate implants. In this model, prostate edema was taken into consideration. Calculations were also performed for tumors of different doubling times and for other related radiobiological parameters of different values. As expected, the derived prescription dose values were dependent on type of tumors and types of edema. However, for prostate cancers in which tumor cells are relatively slow growing and are reported to have a mean potential doubling time of around 40 days, the appropriate prescription dose for permanent {sup 131}Cs seed prostate implants was determined to be: 127{sub -12}{sup +5}Gy if the experiences of {sup 125}I seed implants were followed and 121{sub -3}{sup +0}Gy if the experiences of {sup 103}Pd seed implants were followed.« less
  • The robustness of treatment planning to prostatic edema for three different isotopes ({sup 125}I, {sup 103}Pd, and {sup 131}Cs) is explored using dynamical dose calculations on 25 different clinical prostate cases. The treatment plans were made using the inverse planning by simulated annealing (IPSA) algorithm. The prescription was 144, 127, and 125 Gy for {sup 125}I, {sup 131}Cs, and {sup 103}Pd, respectively. For each isotope, three dose distribution schemes were used to impose different protection levels to the urethra: V{sub 120}=0%, V{sub 150}=0%, and V{sub 150}=30%. Eleven initial edema values were considered ranging from 1.0 (no edema) to 2.0 (100%).more » The edema was assumed to resolve exponentially with time. The prostate volume, seed positions, and seed activity were dynamically tracked to produce the final dose distribution. Edema decay half-lives of 10, 30, and 50 days were used. A total of 675 dynamical calculations were performed for each initial edema value. For the {sup 125}I isotope, limiting the urethra V{sub 120} to 0% leads to a prostate D{sub 90} under 140 Gy for initial edema values above 1.5. Planning with urethra V{sub 150} at 0% provides a good response to the edema; the prostate D{sub 90} remains higher than 140 Gy for edema values up to 1.8 and a half-life of 30 days or less. For {sup 103}Pd, the prostate D{sub 90} is under 97% of the prescription dose for approximately 66%, 40%, and 30% of edema values for urethra V{sub 120}=0%, V{sub 150}=0%, and V{sub 150}=30%, respectively. Similar behavior is seen for {sup 131}Cs and the center of the prostate becomes 'cold' for almost all edema scenarios. The magnitude of the edema following prostate brachytherapy, as well as the half-life of the isotope used and that of the edema resorption, all have important impacts on the dose distribution. The {sup 125}I isotope with its longer half-life is more robust to prostatic edema. Setting up good planning objectives can provide an adequate compromise between organ doses and robustness. This is even more important since seed misplacements will contribute to further degrade dose coverage.« less
  • Purpose: To study the influence of prostatic edema on postimplant physical and radiobiological parameters using {sup 131}Cs permanent prostate seed implants. Methods and Materials: Thirty-one patients with early prostate cancer who underwent {sup 131}Cs permanent seed implantation were evaluated. Dose-volume histograms were generated for each set of prostate volumes obtained at preimplantation and postimplantion days 0, 14, and 28 to compute quality indices (QIs) and fractional doses at level x (FD{sub x}). A set of equations for QI, FD{sub x}, and biologically effective doses at dose level D{sub x} (BED{sub x}) were defined to account for edema changes with timemore » after implant. Results: There were statistically significant differences found between QIs of pre- and postimplant plans at day 0, except for the overdose index (ODI). QIs correlated with postimplant time, and FD{sub x} was found to increase with increasing postimplant time. With the effect of edema, BED at different dose levels showed less improvement due to the short half-life of {sup 131}Cs, which delivers about 85% of the prescribed dose before the prostate reaches its original volume due to dissipation of edema. Conclusions: Results of the study show that QIs, FD{sub x}, and BEDs at the level of D{sub x} changed from preneedle plans to postimplant plans and have statistically significant differences (p < 0.05), except for the ODI (p = 0.106), which suggests that at the time of {sup 131}C seed implantation, the effect of edema must be accounted for when defining the seed positions, to avoid the possibility of poor dosimetric and radiobiologic results for {sup 131}Cs seed implants.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the ability of single- and dual-isotope prostate seed implants to escalate biologically effective dose (BED) to foci of disease while reducing prescription dose to the prostate. Methods and Materials: Nine plans, using {sup 125}I, {sup 103}Pd, and {sup 131}Cs alone and in combination were created retrospectively for 2 patients. Ultrasound and MRI/MRS datasets were used for treatment planning. Voxel-by-voxel BED was calculated for single- and dual-isotope plans. Equivalent uniform BED (EUBED) was used to compare plans. The MRS-positive planning target volumes (PTV{sub i}) were delineated along with PTV (prostate + 5 mm), rectum, and urethra. Single-isotope implants,more » prescribed to conventional doses, were generated to achieve good PTV coverage. The PTV{sub i} were prospectively used to generate implants using mixtures of isotopes. For mixed-radioisotope implants, we also explored the impact on EUBED of lowering prescription doses by 15%. Results: The EUBED of PTV{sub i} in the setting of primary {sup 125}I implant increased 20-66% when {sup 103}Pd and {sup 131}Cs were used compared with {sup 125}I boost. Decreasing prescription dose by 15% in mixed-isotope implants results in a potential 10% reduction in urethral EUBED with preservation of PTV coverage while still boosting PTV{sub i} (up to 80%). When radiobiologic parameters corresponding to more-aggressive disease are assigned to foci, faster-decaying isotopes used in mixed implants have the potential to preserve the equivalent biological effect of mono-isotope implants considering less-aggressive disease distributed in the entire prostate. Conclusions: This is a hypothesis-generating study proposing a treatment paradigm that could be the middle ground between whole-gland irradiation and focal-only treatment. The use of two isotopes concurrent with decreasing the minimal peripheral dose is shown to increase EUBED of selected subvolumes while preserving the therapeutic effect at the level of the gland.« less