Brachytherapy
Volume 8, Issue 1 , Pages 1-3 , January 2009

Point: Cesium-131: Ready for prime time

  • William S. Bice

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Foundation for Medical Physics Research, 3307 Falling Creek, San Antonio, TX 78216, USA. Tel.: +1-210-860-1774; fax: +1-210-538-5457.

References 

  1. Lauer L. Personal communication, 2008. Richland, WA.
  2. Armpilia CI, Dale RG, Coles IP, Merrick G, True L, 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
  3. Brenner DJ, Martinez AA, Edmundson GR, et al. Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low alpha/beta ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52:6–13
  4. D'Souza WD, Thames HD. Is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer low?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:1–3
  5. Duchesne GM, Peters LJ. What is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer? Rationale for hypofractionated high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:747–748
  6. King CR, Fowler JF. A simple analytic derivation suggests that prostate cancer alpha/beta ratio is low. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:213–214
  7. Yaes RJ. Late normal tissue injury from permanent interstitial implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:1163–1169
  8. Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, et al. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys. 1995;22:209–234
  9. Rivard MJ, Butler WM, DeWerd LA, et al. Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report. Med Phys. 2007;34:2187–2205
  10. Williamson J, Coursey BM, DeWerd LA, et al. Dosimetric prerequisites for routine clinical use of new low energy photon interstitial brachytherapy sources. Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee. Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Radiation Therapy Committee. Med Phys. 1998;25:2269–2270
  11. Chen Z, Bongiorni P, Nath R. Dose rate constant of a cesium-131 interstitial brachytherapy seed measured by thermoluminescent dosimetry and gamma-ray spectrometry. Med Phys. 2005;32:3279–3285
  12. Murphy MK, Piper RK, Greenwood LR, et al. Evaluation of the new cesium-131 seed for use in low-energy x-ray brachytherapy. Med Phys. 2004;31:1529–1538
  13. Rivard MJ. Brachytherapy dosimetry parameters calculated for a 131Cs source. Med Phys. 2007;34:754–762
  14. Wang J, Zhang H. Dosimetric characterization of model Cs-1 Rev2 cesium-131 brachytherapy source in water phantoms and human tissues with MCNP5 Monte Carlo simulation. Med Phys. 2008;35:1571–1579
  15. Bice WS, Prestidge BR, Kurzman S, et al. Recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy with 131Cs: a consensus report from the Cesium Advisory Group. Brachytherapy. 2008;7:290–296
  16. Unknown . Yale Prostate Cancer Seeding Study shows palladium-103 superior to older therapy: fewer side effects, could lead to better treatment outcomes. PSA Rising Magazine. 1999;
  17. 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
  18. Lee WR. In regards to Wallner, et al: (125)I versus (103)PD for low-risk prostate cancer: preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial (I 2003;57:1297–1303). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:319;author reply 319–320
  19. Brenner DJ. Estimation of optimal Cs-131 boost dose for combined external-beam/boost treatment for prostate cancer; 2005.
  20. Dale RG. Comparison of the radiobiological effects of Cs-131 implants with those associated with I-125 and Pd-103 implants. Richland, WA: IsoRay Medical; 2004;
  21. Williamson JF, Cousey BM, DeWerd LA, et al. Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on 103Pd interstitial source calibration and dosimetry: implications for dose specification and prescription. Med Phys. 2000;27:634–642
  22. Peschel RE, Chen Z, Roberts K, et al. Long-term complications with prostate implants: iodine-125 vs. palladium-103. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1999;7:278–288
  23. Blasko JC, Grimm PD, Sylvester JE, et al. Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:839–850
  24. Cha CM, Potters L, Ashley R, et al. Isotope selection for patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:391–395
  25. Peschel RE, Coldberg JW, Chen Z, et al. Iodine 125 versus palladium 103 implants for prostate cancer: clinical outcomes and complications. Cancer J. 2004;10:170–174
  26. Sharkey J, Chovnickn SD, Behar RJ, et al. Outpatient ultrasound-guided palladium 103 brachytherapy for localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a preliminary report of 434 patients. Urology. 1998;51:796–803
  27. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al. 125I versus 103Pd for low-risk prostate cancer: preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:1297–1303
  28. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al. 20 Gy versus 44 Gy supplemental beam radiation with Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy: preliminary biochemical outcomes from a prospective randomized multi-center trial. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:307–310
  29. Lee WR, Moughan J, Owen JB, et al. The 1999 patterns of care study of radiotherapy in localized prostate carcinoma: a comprehensive survey of prostate brachytherapy in the United States. Cancer. 2003;98:1987–1994
  30. Prestidge BR, et al. A survey of current clinical practice of permanent prostate brachytherapy in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40:461–465

PII: S1538-4721(08)00656-9

doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2008.11.002

Brachytherapy
Volume 8, Issue 1 , Pages 1-3 , January 2009

Article Tools