Advertisement

Integrating external beam and prostate seed implant dosimetry for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer using biologically effective dose: Impact of image registration technique

      ABSTRACT

      PURPOSE

      Combining external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and prostate seed implant (PSI) is efficacious in treating intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer at the cost of increased genitourinary toxicity. Accurate combined dosimetry remains elusive due to lack of registration between treatment plans and different biological effect. The current work proposes a method to convert physical dose to biological effective dose (BED) and spatially register the dose distributions for more accurate combined dosimetry.

      METHODS AND MATERIALS

      A PSI phantom was CT scanned with and without seeds under rigid and deformed transformations. The resulting CTs were registered using image-based rigid registration (RI), fiducial-based rigid registration (RF), or b-spline deformable image registration (DIR) to determine which was most accurate. Physical EBRT and PSI dose distributions from a sample of 91 previously-treated combined-modality prostate cancer patients were converted to BED and registered using RI, RF, and DIR. Forty-eight (48) previously-treated patients whose PSI occurred before EBRT were included as a “control” group due to inherent registration. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters were compared for RI, RF, DIR, DICOM, and scalar addition of DVH parameters using ANOVA or independent Student's t tests (α = 0.05).

      RESULTS

      In the phantom study, DIR was the most accurate registration algorithm, especially in the case of deformation. In the patient study, dosimetry from RI was significantly different than the other registration algorithms, including the control group. Dosimetry from RF and DIR were not significantly different from the control group or each other.

      CONCLUSIONS

      Combined dosimetry with BED and image registration is feasible. Future work will utilize this method to correlate dosimetry with clinical outcomes.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Brachytherapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2020.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 7-30https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590
        • Liss A.L.
        • Abu-Isa E.I.
        • Jawad M.S.
        • et al.
        Combination therapy improves prostate cancer survival for patients with potentially lethal prostate cancer: the impact of Gleason pattern 5.
        Brachytherapy. 2015; 14: 502-510https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2015.02.389
        • Spratt D.E.
        • Zumsteg Z.S.
        • Ghadjar P.
        • et al.
        Comparison of high-dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT vs combined brachytherapy plus IMRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114: 360-367https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12514
        • Stone N.N.
        • Potters L.
        • Davis B.J.
        • et al.
        Multicenter analysis of effect of high biologic effective dose on biochemical failure and survival outcomes in patients with gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73: 341-346https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.038
        • Shilkrut M.
        • Merrick G.S.
        • McLaughlin P.W.
        • et al.
        The addition of low-dose-rate brachytherapy and androgen-deprivation therapy decreases biochemical failure and prostate cancer death compared with dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2013; 119: 681-690https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27784
        • Stock R.G.
        • Cesaretti J.A.
        • Hall S.J.
        • Stone N.N.
        Outcomes for patients with high-grade prostate cancer treated with a combination of brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy and hormonal therapy.
        BJU Int. 2009; 104: 1631-1636https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08661.x
        • Morris W.J.
        • Tyldesley S.
        • Pai H.
        • et al.
        Low-dose-rate brachytherapy is superior to dose-escalated ebrt for unfavourable risk prostate cancer: the results of the ASCENDE-RT* randomized control trial.
        Brachytherapy. 2015; 14 (2015): S12https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2015.02.200
        • Zaorsky N.G.
        • Palmer J.D.
        • Hurwitz M.D.
        • et al.
        What is the ideal radiotherapy dose to treat prostate cancer? A meta-analysis of biologically equivalent dose escalation.
        Radiother Oncol. 2015; 115: 295-300https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.05.011
        • Stock R.G.
        • Stone N.N.
        • Cesaretti J.A.
        • Rosenstein B.S.
        Biologically effective dose values for prostate brachytherapy: effects on PSA failure and posttreatment biopsy results.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64: 527-533https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.981
        • Miles E.F.
        • Nelson J.W.
        • Alkaissi A.K.
        • et al.
        Biologically effective dose (BED) correlation with biochemical control after low-dose rate prostate brachytherapy for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 77: 139-146https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.052
        • Stone N.N.
        • Stock R.G.
        • Cesaretti J.A.
        • Unger P.
        Local control following permanent prostate brachytherapy: effect of high biologically effective dose on biopsy results and oncologic outcomes.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 76: 355-360https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.078
        • Wong W.W.
        • Vora S.A.
        • Schild S.E.
        • et al.
        Radiation dose escalation for localized prostate cancer: intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus permanent transperineal brachytherapy.
        Cancer. 2009; 115: 5596-5606https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24558
        • Schlussel Markovic E.
        • Buckstein M.
        • Stone N.N.
        • Stock R.G
        Outcomes and toxicities in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy alone or brachytherapy and supplemental external beam radiation therapy.
        BJU Int. 2018; 121: 774-780https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14128
        • Rodda S.
        • Tyldesley S.
        • Morris W.J.
        • et al.
        ASCENDE-RT: an analysis of treatment-related morbidity for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost with a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 98: 286-295https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.008
        • Wallner K.
        • Roy J.
        • Harrison L.
        Dosimetry guidelines to minimize urethral and rectal morbidity following transperineal I-125 prostate brachytherapy.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995; 32: 465-471https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)00599-G
        • Teo B.K.
        • Bonner Millar L.P.
        • Ding X.
        • Lin L.L.
        Assessment of cumulative external beam and intracavitary brachytherapy organ doses in gynecologic cancers using deformable dose summation.
        Radiother Oncol. 2015; 115: 195-202https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.04.002
        • Hall E.J.
        • Giaccia A.J.
        Radiobiology For the Radiologist. Sixth Edit.
        Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA2006
        • Fowler J.F.
        • Toma-Dasu I.
        • Dasu A.
        Is the α/β ratio for prostate tumors really low and does it vary with the level of risk at diagnosis?.
        Anticancer Res. 2013; 33: 1009-1012
        • Pritz J.
        • Forster K.M.
        • Saini A.S.
        • et al.
        Providing a fast conversion of total dose to biological effective dose (BED) for hybrid seed brachytherapy.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012; 13: 24-32https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3800
        • Boonstra P.S.
        • Taylor J.M.G.
        • Smolska-Ciszewska B.
        • et al.
        Alpha/beta (a/b) ratio for prostate cancer derived from external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy boost.
        Br J Radiol. 2016; 89: 1-9https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150957
        • Dale R.G.
        Radiobiological assessment of permanent implants using tumor repopulation factors in the linear-quadratic model.
        Br J Radiol. 1989; 62: 241-244https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-62-735-241
        • Nath R.
        • Bice W.S.
        • Butler W.M.
        • et al.
        AAPM recommendations on dose prescription and reporting methods for permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: report of Task Group 137.
        Med Phys. 2009; 36: 5310-5322https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3246613
        • Guest D.
        • Riegel A.C.
        SU-I-GPD-T-35: an algorithm to calculate biologically effective dose distributions for low dose rate prostate brachytherapy.
        AAPM Annual Conference. 2017; 44: 2654
        • Viola P.
        • Wells W.
        Alignment by maximization of mutual information.
        Int J Comput Vis. 1997; 24: 137-154
        • Brock K.K.
        • Mutic S.
        • McNutt T.R.
        • et al.
        Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132: report.
        Med Phys. 2017; 44: e43-e76https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12256
        • Stapleford L.J.
        • Lawson J.D.
        • Perkins C.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of automatic atlas-based lymph node segmentation for head-and-neck cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 77: 959-966https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.023
        • Wang H.
        • Dong L.
        • O'Daniel J.
        • et al.
        Validation of an accelerated “demons” algorithm for deformable image registration in radiation therapy.
        Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50: 2887-2905https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/12/011
        • Dice L.
        Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species.
        Ecology. 1945; 26: 297-302
        • Stock R.G.
        • Stone N.N.
        • Wesson M.F.
        • DeWyngaert J.K.
        A modified technique allowing interactive ultrasound-guided three-dimensional transperineal prostate implantation.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995; 32: 219-225https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00521-Y
        • Rivard M.J.
        • Coursey B.M.
        • DeWerd L.A.
        • et al.
        Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: a revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations.
        Med Phys. 2004; 31: 633-674https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1646040
        • Rudat V.
        • Nour A.
        • Hammond M.
        • et al.
        Image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer: analysis of interfractional errors and acute toxicity.
        Strahlentherapie und Onkol. 2016; 192: 109-117https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-015-0919-y
        • Munoz F.
        • Fiandra C.
        • Franco P.
        • et al.
        Tracking target position variability using intraprostatic fiducial markers and electronic portal imaging in prostate cancer radiotherapy.
        Radiol Medica. 2012; 117: 1057-1070https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0797-7
        • Mutanga T.F.
        • De Boer H.C.J.
        • Rajan V.
        • et al.
        Day-to-day reproducibility of prostate intrafraction motion assessed by multiple kV and MV imaging of implanted markers during treatment.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 400-407https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.049
        • Jani A.B.
        • Hand C.M.
        • Lujan A.E.
        • et al.
        Biological effective dose for comparison and combination of external beam and low-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy prostate cancer treatment plans.
        Med Dosim. 2004; 29: 42-48https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2003.09.005
        • Zhang G.
        • Huang T.C.
        • Feygelman V.
        • et al.
        Generation of composite dose and biological effective dose (BED) over multiple treatment modalities and multistage planning using deformable image registration.
        Med Dosim. 2010; 35: 143-150https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2009.05.001
        • Riegel A.C.
        • Antone J.G.
        • Zhang H.
        • et al.
        Deformable image registration and interobserver variation in contour propagation for radiation therapy planning.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17: 347-357https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6110
        • Rasch C.
        • Steenbakkers R.
        • Van Herk M.
        Target definition in prostate, head, and neck.
        Semin Radiat Oncol. 2005; 15: 136-145https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2005.01.005
        • Carrier J.F.
        • D'Amours M.
        • Verhaegen F.
        • et al.
        Postimplant dosimetry using a monte carlo dose calculation engine: a new clinical standard.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 68: 1190-1198https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.02.036
        • Miksys N.
        • Haidari M.
        • Vigneault E.
        • et al.
        Coupling I-125 permanent implant prostate brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations with radiobiological models.
        Med Phys. 2017; 44: 4329-4340https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12306
        • Beaulieu L.
        • Å Carlsson Tedgren
        • Carrier J.F.
        • et al.
        Report of the task group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 6208-6236https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4747264
        • Spratt D.E.
        • Soni P.D.
        • McLaughlin P.W.
        • et al.
        American brachytherapy society task group report: combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation for high-risk prostate cancer.
        Brachytherapy. 2017; 16: 1-12https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2016.09.006
        • Chao M.
        • Joon D.L.
        • Khoo V.
        • et al.
        Combined low dose rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2019; 50: 82-86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2018.09.010
        • Marshall R.A.
        • Buckstein M.
        • Stone N.N.
        • Stock R.
        Treatment outcomes and morbidity following definitive brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 20-year experience at Mount Sinai Medical Center.
        Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2014; 32: 38.e1-38.e7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.03.004
        • Yorozu A.
        • Kuroiwa N.
        • Takahashi A.
        • et al.
        Permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy as practiced in Japan: outcomes of 1300 patients.
        Brachytherapy. 2015; 14: 111-117https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2014.06.008
        • Fischer-Valuck B.W.
        • Gay H.A.
        • Patel S.
        • et al.
        A brief review of Low-Dose Rate (LDR) and High-Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost for high-risk prostate.
        Front Oncol. 2019; 9: 1-7https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01378
        • Akimoto T.
        • Ito K.
        • Saitoh J.I.
        • et al.
        Acute genitourinary toxicity after high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy combined with hypofractionated external-beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: correlation between the urethral dose in HDR brachytherapy and the severity of acute genito.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 63: 463-471https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.11.041
        • Bagshaw H.P.
        • Williams N.L.
        • Huang Y.J.
        • et al.
        Palladium interstitial implant in combination with external beam radiotherapy and chemotherapy for the definitive treatment of a female urethral carcinoma.
        Gynecol Oncol Reports. 2015; 13: 40-43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2015.06.001
        • Ferro A.
        • Bae H.J.
        • Yenokyan G.
        • et al.
        Reductions in prostatic doses are associated with less acute morbidity in patients undergoing Pd-103 brachytherapy: substantiation of the rationale for focal therapy.
        Brachytherapy. 2018; 17: 313-318https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2017.10.008
        • Feutren T.
        • Herrera F.G.
        Prostate irradiation with focal dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule: a systematic review.
        Prostate Int. 2018; 6: 75-87https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2018.03.005
        • Chapman C.H.
        • Braunstein S.E.
        • Pouliot J.
        • et al.
        Phase I study of dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions using high-dose-rate brachytherapy.
        J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2018; 10: 193-201https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2018.76881
        • McGee H.M.
        • King M.J.
        • Özbek U.
        • et al.
        Dual modality radiation with external beam radiation therapy and transarterial radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with gross vascular invasion.
        Am J Clin Oncol Cancer Clin Trials. 2019; 42: 367-374https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000523
        • Isfahanian N.
        • Lukka H.
        • Dayes I.
        • et al.
        A randomized Phase II trial of prostate boost irradiation with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or conventional fractionation (CF) external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in locally advanced prostate cancer: the PBS trial (NCT03380806).
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18: e410-e415https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.12.020
        • Katz A.
        • Kang J.
        Stereotactic body radiotherapy with or without external beam radiation as treatment for organ confined high-risk prostate carcinoma: a six year study.
        Radiat Oncol. 2014; 9: 1-10