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 ,Revised 2 April 2008 ,Accepted 2 April 2008.

References 

  1. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al. I-125 versus Pd-103 for low-risk prostate cancer: Morbidity outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Cancer J. 2002;8:67–73
  2. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al. Iodine-125 vs. Palladium-103 for low-risk prostate cancer: Preliminary urinary functional outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. J Brachy Int. 2000;151–155
  3. Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Cohen GN, et al. Five-year outcome of intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:65–70
  4. Taussky D, Austen L, Toi A, et al. Sequential evaluation of prostate edema after permanent seed prostate brachytherapy using CT-MRI fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:974–980
  5. Chen Z, Deng J, Roberts K, et al. Potential impact of prostate edema on the dosimetry of permanent seed implants using the new Cs-131 (model CS-1) seeds. Med Phys. 2006;33:968–975
  6. Waterman FM, Yue N, Corn BW, et al. Edema associated with I-125 or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy and its impact on post-implant dosimetry: An analysis based on serial CT acquisition. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:1069–1077
  7. Moerland MA, Wijrdeman HK, Beersma R, et al. Evaluation of permanent I-125 prostate implants using radiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:927–933
  8. Narayana V, Roberson PL, Pu AT, et al. Impact of differences in ultrasound and computed tomography volumes on treatment planning of permanent prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:1181–1185
  9. Prestidge BR, Bice WS, Kiefer EJ, et al. Timing of computed tomography-based postimplant assessment following permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40:1111–1115
  10. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al. Influence of timing on the dosimetric analysis of transperineal ultrasound-guided prostatic conformal brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1998;6:182–190
  11. Yue N, Nath N, Chen Z, et al. Optimum timing for CT-based dose evaluation of I-125 and Pd-103 prostate seed implants. [Abstract] Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:134
  12. Potters L, Wang ZH, Yamada Y. A nomogram to compensate for intraoperative prostate edema during transperineal brachytherapy. Tech Urol. 2000;6:99–103
  13. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974
  14. Ragde H, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et al. Interstitial iodine-125 radiation without adjuvant therapy in the treatment of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;80:442–453
  15. Potters L, Morgensterm C, Calugaru E, et al. 12-Year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;173:1562–1566
  16. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;161:32–43
  17. Stock RG, Stone NN, Tabert A, et al. A dose–response study for I-125 prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:101–108
  18. Zelefsky MJ, Kuban DA, Levy LB, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1–T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:327–333
  19. Stock RG, Stone NN, Kao J, et al. The effect of disease and treatment-related factors on biopsy results after prostate brachytherapy: Implications for treatment optimization. Cancer. 2000;89:1829–1834
  20. Nag S, Bice W, DeWyngaert K, et al. The American brachytherapy society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetric analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:221–230
  21. Prestidge B, Bice W. Cesium-131—The isotope of choice in permanent prostate brachytherapy [Abstract]. Presented at American Brachytherapy Society. Chicago, IL; 2007;6:80.
  22. Moran B, Braccioforte M. Cesium-131—Prostate brachytherapy: An early experience [Abstract]. Presented at American Brachytherapy Society. Chicago, IL; 2007;6:80.
  23. Armpilia CI, Dale RG, Coles IP, et al. The determination of radiobiologically optimized half-lives for radionuclides used in permanent brachytherapy implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:378–385

 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

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution