Brachytherapy
Volume 7, Issue 3 , Pages 237-241, July 2008

Planning based on postneedle volume with early dosimetric assessment is beneficial for Cesium-131 permanent prostate seed implantation

  • Ryan P. Smith

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC St. Maragret's Hospital, 815 Freeport Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15238. Tel.: +1-412-784-4900; fax: +1-412-784-4905.
  • ,
  • Sushil Beriwal

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • ,
  • Krishna Komanduri

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • ,
  • Erin Gibbons

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
  • ,
  • Ronald Benoit

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA

Received 11 October 2007; received in revised form 2 April 2008; accepted 2 April 2008. published online 03 July 2008.

Abstract 

Purpose

This study reports on prostate edema after prostate brachytherapy using Cesium-131 (131Cs) and describes our method to compensate.

Methods and materials

Thirty-one patients underwent brachytherapy using an afterloading technique. Volume measurements of the prostate were taken at various time intervals relative to the date of implant. Real-time operating room dosimetry was used for seed placement on the postneedle prostate volume. The prostate volumes at the various time points were used to determine the effect of prostate edema on dosimetry.

Results

Increase in prostate volume occurred immediately after needle placement, as measured by both ultrasound (mean increase of 17.7% (0–75.0%) from 36.8 to 46.9cc) and Day 0 CT (mean increase of 15.3% (0–54.8%) to 45.9cc). Day 0 assessment of dosimetry revealed a median D90 of 102.7% (86.7–133.4%), median V100 of 91.8% (75.9–98.4%), median V150 of 44.4% (23.8–81.3%), and median V200 of 16.3% (7.8–36.9%). This edema dissipated over the next 4 weeks, with resultant changes in dosimetric parameters. By 4 weeks, prostate volume had returned to the preimplant volume (37.7cc) with increased D90 (118.2%), V100 (95.6%), V150 (63.9%), and V200 (28.4%).

Conclusions

There is significant immediate edema with prostate brachytherapy. This affects the dosimetry of the implant substantially. Because of this edema, our planning for brachytherapy is done on the postneedle implant volume. Quality assurance studies should be done on the same day as the implant to avoid substantial overestimation of dosimetric parameters.

Keywords: Brachytherapy, Cesium-131, Prostate cancer

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Presented at ASTRO, Los Angeles, CA, October 2007.

PII: S1538-4721(08)00560-6

doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2008.04.003

Brachytherapy
Volume 7, Issue 3 , Pages 237-241, July 2008