Can extraprostatic extension be treated by prostate brachytherapy? An analysis based on postimplant dosimetry.

PURPOSE: To determine whether extraprostatic extension (EPE) can be treated by Pd-103 prostate implants. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The postimplant dosimetry of 22 consecutive Pd-103 prostate implants was analyzed to determine whether potential EPE was adequately treated. The implants were peripherally loaded and planned with a 3-5-mm dose margin at midgland. Seeds were not implanted outside of the capsule except at the base and apex. The postimplant dosimetry was based on a CT scan obtained 32 +/- 8 days postimplant. The radial distance between the prostate edge and the prescription isodose line was measured at the left lateral, left posterolateral, posterior, right posterolateral, and right lateral positions on each prostate contour. Similar measurements were made of the preplan dose margins. RESULTS: The mean postimplant dose margin was > or =4.5 mm at the midgland and apex of the prostate in agreement with the preplan. However, at the base, the mean margins at the five measurement locations were less than planned, typically ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The postimplant margin at the base was smaller than expected due to source placement errors, a correctable problem. CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally loaded Pd-103 prostate implants can deliver the prescription dose 3-5 mm outside the capsule, which is believed to be sufficient to treat 95-100% of EPE in favorable risk patients. However, dose coverage of EPE, like dose coverage of the prostate, is operator-dependent.

Dosimetric analysis of urinary morbidity following prostate brachytherapy (125I vs. 103Pd) combined with external beam radiation therapy.

The purpose of this analysis was to correlate isotope selection with the urinary symptoms of patients who received a combination of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and a transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) boost with either a (103)palladium ((103)Pd) or a (125)iodine ((125)I) radioisotope. Postimplant dosimetry was performed to evaluate both urethral dose and implant quality. The American Urologic Association (AUA) scores in both the (125)I and (103)Pd groups were similar initially. However, at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the mean AUA scores for the (125)I and (103)Pd patients were 18 +/- 6 vs. 11 +/- 9, 17 +/- 7 vs. 11 +/- 7, 10 +/- 3 vs. 9 +/- 4, and 14 +/- 8 vs. 7 +/- 5, respectively (P < 0.01). The only significant difference between the postimplant dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the (125)I and (103)Pd implants was the minimum dose that 90% of the urethra received (D(90)). The increased AUA score of the (125)I group was weakly correlated (R(2) = 0.20) with the D(90) dose but that of the (103)Pd patients was not (R(2) = 0.00). This suggests that the higher AUA score of the (125)I patients was not necessarily the result of the higher D(90) dose. Thus, patients who received (103)Pd experienced less urinary morbidity than those implanted with (125)I. We recommend further validating these findings in prospective studies in which the quality of the (125)I and (103)Pd implants can be evaluated.

Isotope selection for permanent prostate implants? An evaluation of 103Pd versus 125I based on radiobiological effectiveness and dosimetry.

Transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) has become an increasingly popular treatment for early-stage/favorable-risk adenocarcinoma of prostate. Within TIPPB, permanent implants often use either (103)Pd (T(1/2) = 17 days) or (125)I (T(1/2) = 60 days). This review compares the radiobiological and treatment planning effectiveness of (103)Pd and (125)I implants by using the linear-quadratic model with recently published data regarding: prostate tumor cell doubling times, T(pot), alpha and alpha/beta, ratio. The tumor potential doubling times (T(pot)) were determined based on recently published proliferation constants (K(p)). The initial slope of the cell radiation dose survival curve, alpha, the terminal slope beta and the alpha/beta ratio were taken from recent published clinical and cellular results. The total dose delivered from each isotope was the dose used clinically, that is, 120 Gy for (103)Pd and 145 Gy for (125)I. Dale's modified linear-quadratic equation was used to estimate the biological effective dose, the cell-surviving fraction, the effective treatment time, and the wasted radiation dose for different values of T(pot). Treatment plans for peripherally loaded implants were compared. The T(pot) reported for organ-confined prostate carcinomas varied from 16 to 67 days. At short T(pot) both isotopes were less effective, but (103)Pd had much less dependence on T(pot) than (125)I. However, at long T(pot) both isotopes produced similar effects. The minimum surviving fraction for exposure to (103)Pd decreased from 1.40 x 10(-4) to 1.31 x 10(-5) as the T(pot) increased from 16 to 67 days. By contrast for exposure to (125)I, the minimum surviving fraction decreased from 3.98 x 10(-3) to 1.98 x 10(-5) over the same range of T(pot). A comparison of treatment plans revealed that (103)Pd plans required more needles and seeds; however, this was a function of seed strength. Both isotopes had similar dose-volume histograms for prostate, urethra, and rectum. The theoretical prediction of effectiveness using the linear quadratic equation for the common clinically prescribed total radiation doses indicated that (103)Pd should be more effective than (125)I because it had less dependence on T(pot). The greatest benefit of (103)Pd was shown to be with tumors with a short T(pot). Although the regrowth delay would be longer with (125)I, the benefit was inconsequential compared with the very slow doubling times of localized prostate cancer. Treatment planning with either isotope revealed no significant differences. These findings may explain why clinically there seemed to be no clear difference in treatment outcome with either isotope. Based on these predictions, we recommend a clinical trial to compare the efficacy of the two isotopes.

The impact of postimplant edema on the urethral dose in prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: The objective of this work is to determine the effect of timing of the postimplant CT scan on the assessment of the urethral dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A preimplant CT scan and two postimplant CT scans were obtained on 50 patients who received I-125 prostate seed implants. The first postimplant CT scan was obtained on the day of the implant; the second usually 4 to 9 weeks later (mean: 46 +/- 23 days; range: 27-135 days). The urethra was localized in each postimplant CT scan and a dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the urethral dose was compiled from each CT study. The relative decrease in the prostate volume between the first and second postimplant CT scans was determined by contouring the prostate in each CT scan. RESULTS: The prostate volume decreased by 27 +/- 9% (mean +/- SD) between the first and second postimplant CT scans. As a result, the averaged urethral dose derived from the second CT scan was about 30% higher. In terms of dose, the D(10), D(25), D(50), D(75), and D(90) urethral doses derived from the second CT scan were 90 +/- 56 Gy, 81 +/- 49 Gy, 67 +/- 42 Gy, 49 +/- 44 Gy, and 40 +/- 46 Gy higher, respectively. The increase in the urethral dose is correlated with the decrease in the prostate volume (R = 0.57, rho < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The assessment of the urethral dose depends upon the timing of the postimplant CT scan. The mean D(10) dose derived from the CT scans obtained at 46 +/- 23 days postimplant was 90 +/- 56 Gy higher than that derived from the CT scans obtained on the day of the implant. Because of this large difference, the timing of the postimplant CT scan needs to be specified when specifying dose thresholds for urethral morbidity.

Can the cost of permanent prostate implants be reduced? An argument for peripheral loading with higher strength seeds.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the economic impact of higher vs. lower strength permanent radioactive seeds used for prostate brachytherapy in the treatment of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment plans for 50 patients who received an iodine 125 implant as monotherapy for favorable risk prostate cancer were reviewed and specific activity (mCi/cc) was determined for prostate volumes that ranged from 12 to 87 cc. Current prices for individual model 6711 125I seeds were obtained from the manufacturer (Nycomed/Amersham). Total seed costs for three theoretical prostate implant volumes of 25, 40, and 55 cc were calculated using seed strengths of 0.25, 0.34, 0.50, and 0.75 mCi/seed. RESULTS: Specific activities for prostate volumes of 25, 40, and 55 cc were 1.25, 1.15, and 1.00 mCi/cc, respectively. Total seed cost was inversely related to seed strength. For a 25-cc prostate the cost ranged from $1,890 (0.75 mCi/seed) to $5,625 (0.25 mCi/seed), for a 40-cc prostate $2,745 to $8,280, and for a 55-cc prostate $3,285 to $9,900. For a medium-sized gland (40 cc), the treatment plan using a seed strength of 0.75 mCi/seed resulted in a total seed cost of $2,745 vs. $6,075 for a plan using an activity of 0.34 mCi/seed. This savings of approximately 55% in total seed cost between seed strengths of 0.75 and 0.34 mCi/seed held true for small (25 cc) and large (55 cc) prostate volumes as well. CONCLUSIONS: Given the current prices for 125I individual seeds, prostate implants using a peripheral loading technique with higher activity seeds may result in a significantly lower material cost than techniques using lower activity seeds. However, issues regarding morbidity as well as sensitivity to source placement error need to be addressed further before any final conclusions can be made.

Is there a role for antibiotic prophylaxis in transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy?

PURPOSE: There are few data to guide the physician on the use of prophylactic antibiotic(s) for prostate brachytherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) rate after performing transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) in conjunction with cystoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred twenty-five patients underwent TIPPB and cystoscopy. All patients received intravenous perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. No postimplant antibiotic medication was prescribed. All patients were evaluated at 1-month follow- up for symptomatic UTI. No screening (U/A, C+S) was performed for asymptomatic patients. Any UTI within 1 month of TIPPB was considered a complication and scored as an infection. RESULTS: Of 125 patients who underwent TIPPB and cystoscopy, one patient (1%) developed a symptomatic UTI. In our study, a one-time perioperative intravenous dose of cefazolin (Ancef) without additional postoperative antibiotics resulted in an overall symptomatic UTI rate of 1%. Hence, additional postoperative antibiotics may not be warranted, thus providing a cost saving (500 mg of ciprofloxacin orally, two times a day for 5 days at a cost of $44.95) and reducing the potential risk of antibiotic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: When cystoscopy is used in conjunction with TIPPB, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. However, due to the low infection rate expected from TIPPB, postimplant antibiotic use is not recommended. As a result of the low infection rate anticipated from TIPPB and cystoscopy, a large multiinstitutional trial is needed to determine the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis for TIPPB and cystoscopy.

Determination of the urethral dose in prostate brachytherapy when the urethra cannot be visualized in the postimplant CT scan.

This study investigates the feasibility of locating the urethra at the geometric center of peripherally loaded 125I prostate implant when a urinary catheter is not utilized for the postimplant CT scan. Twenty postimplant CT scans utilizing a urinary catheter were randomly selected. The urethra was localized in each study and, in addition, a surrogate urethra was localized at the geometric center of the prostate. Dose-volume histograms of the urethra and surrogate urethra were compiled and compared. The values obtained for the urethra D10, D25, and D50 were in good agreement and demonstrate that the urethral dose can be determined reliably by locating a surrogate urethra at the geometric center of the prostate in a peripherally loaded implant when the urethra cannot be visualized.

Optimum timing for image-based dose evaluation of 125I and 103PD prostate seed implants.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Image-based dose evaluation of permanent brachytherapy implants for prostate cancer is important for optimal patient management after implantation. Because of edema caused by the surgical procedure in the implantation, if the dose evaluation is based on the images obtained too early after implantation, dose coverage will usually be underestimated. Conversely, if the images are obtained too late, the dose coverage will be overestimated. This study uses a biomathematical model to simulate edema and its resolution on 29 patients, so that the optimum time to obtain image scans and perform dose evaluation can be investigated and estimated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Edema of a prostate and its resolution has been shown to follow an exponential function V(t) = V(0)(1 + deltaV[e-0.693t/Te - 1]) where deltaV is the initial relative increase in the prostate volume due to edema (and is related to edema magnitude), and Te (edema half-life) is the time for the edema to decrease by half in volume. In this study, edema was simulated by increasing the volume of preimplant prostate (obtained from ultrasound volume study) to a given magnitude of edema. Similarly, the locations of planned seeds were changed to their corresponding locations in the edematous prostate proportionally. The edema was then allowed to resolve according to the exponential function. The correct dose distribution was calculated by taking into account the dynamic variations of the prostate volume, seed locations, and source strengths with respect to time. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) were then generated from this dose distribution. The conventional postimplant DVHs, which assume the prostate volume and seed locations are as in the image scans and constant in time, were also calculated based on the simulated image scans for various days postimplantation. The conventional DVHs of prostate on various days after implantation were compared to the DVH calculated assuming dynamic conditions. The optimum timing for conventional postimplant dose evaluation was identified as the time at which a minimum difference between the conventional DVH and the dynamic model DVH was achieved. The analysis was done on 29 prostate seed implant patients for both 125I and 103Pd. The edema magnitude was assumed to be 30%, 40%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of original prostate volume, and the half-life of edema was assumed to be 4, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25 days. In this study, the original volume of prostate varied from 17 cm3 to 91 cm3, and number of seeds in the implants varied from 57 to 119. RESULTS: The optimum timing was mainly dependent on the half-lives of edema and radionuclides, and varied slightly with edema magnitude, prostate volume, and number of seeds. It can be expressed as a function of edema half-life in the form of C0 + C1exp(-C2Te). However, if the dose evaluation was performed based on the image scans taken too early or too late, the error became larger, as the edema magnitude was larger. By averaging all 29 patients and various edemas, it was found that for 125I seed implants, if the postimplant dose evaluation is performed based on image scans taken between 5 and 9 weeks, the average error will be less than 5%, with a maximum possible error less than 10% in 80% coverage dose; for 103Pd seed implants, if the postimplant dose evaluation is performed based on image scans taken between 2 and 4 weeks, the average error will be less than 5%, with a maximum error less than 15% in 80% coverage dose. Because of edema, a conventional preimplant plan also overestimates dose coverage of prostate. On the average, a standard preimplant planning overestimates dose coverage by about 6% for 125I implants and 14% for 103Pd implants in our study. CONCLUSION: Based on the dynamic model, the optimum timing of image scans for postimplant dose evaluation of prostate seed implantation is 7 weeks postimplantation for 125I implants and about 3 weeks for 103Pd implants. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Effect of post-implant edema on the rectal dose in prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To characterize the effect of prostate edema on the determination of the dose delivered to the rectum following the implantation of 125I or 103Pd seeds into the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 3 to 5 post-implant computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained on 9 patients who received either 125I or 103Pd seed implants. None of the patients received hormone therapy. The outer surface of the rectum was outlined on each axial CT image from the base to the apex of the prostate. The D10 rectal surface dose, defined as the dose which encompasses only 10% of the surface area of the rectum, was determined from each CT scan by compiling a dose-surface histogram (DSH) of the rectal surface. The magnitude and half-life of the post-implant edema in each of these implants is known from the results of a previously published study based on the analysis of the serial CT scans. RESULTS: As the prostate edema resolved, the distance between the most posterior implanted seeds and the anterior surface of the rectum decreased. As a result, the D10 rectal surface dose increased with each successive post-implant CT scan until the edema resolved. The dose increased exponentially at approximately the same rate the prostate volume decreased. The D10 rectal surface dose at 30 days post-implant ranged from 16% to 190% (mean 68 +/- 50%) greater than on day 0. The dose on day 30 was at least 50% greater in 6 of 9 cases. CONCLUSION: The rectal surface dose determined by analysis of a post-implant CT scan of an 125I or 103Pd prostate seed implant depends upon the timing of the CT scan. The dose indicated by the CT scan on day 30 is typically at least 50% greater than that indicated by the CT scan on day 0. Because of this difference, it is important to keep the timing of the post-implant CT in mind when specifying dose thresholds for rectal morbidity.

Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64.

There is now considerable evidence to suggest that technical innovations, 3D image-based planning, template guidance, computerized dosimetry analysis and improved quality assurance practice have converged in synergy in modern prostate brachytherapy, which promise to lead to increased tumor control and decreased toxicity. A substantial part of the medical physicist's contribution to this multi-disciplinary modality has a direct impact on the factors that may singly or jointly determine the treatment outcome. It is therefore of paramount importance for the medical physics community to establish a uniform standard of practice for prostate brachytherapy physics, so that the therapeutic potential of the modality can be maximally and consistently realized in the wider healthcare community. A recent survey in the U.S. for prostate brachytherapy revealed alarming variance in the pattern of practice in physics and dosimetry, particularly in regard to dose calculation, seed assay and time/method of postimplant imaging. Because of the large number of start-up programs at this time, it is essential that the roles and responsibilities of the medical physicist be clearly defined, consistent with the pivotal nature of the clinical physics component in assuring the ultimate success of prostate brachytherapy. It was against this background that the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine formed Task Group No. 64, which was charged (1) to review the current techniques in prostate seed implant brachytherapy, (2) to summarize the present knowledge in treatment planning, dose specification and reporting, (3) to recommend practical guidelines for the clinical medical physicist, and (4) to identify issues for future investigation.

Variation of clinical target volume definition in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Currently, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) planning relies on the interpretation of computed tomography (CT) axial images for defining the clinical target volume (CTV). This study investigates the variation among multiple observers to define the CTV used in 3D-CRT for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven observers independently delineated the CTVs (prostate +/- seminal vesicles [SV]) from the CT simulation data of 10 prostate cancer patients undergoing 3D-CRT. Six patients underwent CT simulation without the use of contrast material and serve as a control group. The other 4 had urethral and bladder opacification with contrast medium. To determine interobserver variation, we evaluated the derived volume, the maximum dimensions, and the isocenter for each examination of CTV. We assessed the reliability in the CTVs among the observers by correlating the variation for each class of measurements. This was estimated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with 1.00 defining absolute correlation. RESULTS: For the prostate volumes, the ICC was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.96). This changed to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.75-0.99) with the use of contrast material. Similarly, the maximal prostatic dimensions were reliable and improved. There was poor agreement in defining the SV. For this structure, the ICC never exceeded 0.28. The reliability of the isocenter was excellent, with the ICC exceeding 0.83 and 0.90 for the prostate +/- SV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In 3D-CRT for prostate cancer, there was excellent agreement among multiple observers to define the prostate target volume but poor agreement to define the SV. The use of urethral and bladder contrast improved the reliability of localizing the prostate. For all CTVs, the isocenter was very reliable and should be used to compare the variation in 3D dosimetry among multiple observers.

The impact of edema on planning 125I and 103Pd prostate implants.

Permanent transperineal interstitial 125I and 103Pd prostate implants are generally planned to deliver a specific dose to a clinically defined target volume; however, the post-implant evaluation usually reveals that the implant delivered a lower or higher dose than planned. This difference is generally attributed to such factors as source placement errors, overestimation of the prostate volume on CT, and post-implant edema. In the present work we investigate the impact of edema alone. In routine prostate implant planning, it is customary to assume that both the prostate and seeds are static throughout the entire treatment time, and post-implant edema is not taken into consideration in the dosimetry calculation. However, prostate becomes edematous after seed implantation, typically by 50% in volume [Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 41, 1069-1077 (1998)]. The edema resolves itself exponentially with a typical half-life of 10 days. In this work, the impact of the edema-induced dynamic change in prostate volume and seed location on the dose coverage of the prostate is investigated. The total dose delivered to the prostate was calculated by use of a dynamic model, which takes edema into account. In the model, the edema resolves exponentially with time, as reported in a separate study based on serial CT scans [Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 41, 1069-1077 (1998)]. The model assumes that the seeds were implanted exactly as planned, thus eliminating the effect of source placement errors. Implants based on the same transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images were planned using both 125I and 103Pd sources separately. The preimplant volume and planned seed locations were expanded to different degrees of edema to simulate the postimplant edematous prostate on day 0. The model calculated the dose in increments of 24 h, appropriately adjusting the prostate volume, seed locations, and source strength prior to each time interval and compiled dose-volume histograms (DVH) of the total dose delivered. A total of 30 such DVHs were generated for each implant using different combinations of edema half-life and magnitude. In addition, a DVH of the plan was compiled in the conventional manner, assuming that the prostate volume and seeds were static during treatment. A comparison of the DVH of the static model to the 30 edema corrected DVHs revealed that the plan overestimated the total dose by an amount that increased with the magnitude of the edema and the edema half-life. The maximum overestimation was 15% for 125I and 32% for 103Pd. For more typical edema parameters (a 50% increase in volume and a 10 day half-life) the static plan for 125I overestimated the total dose by about 5%, whereas that for 103Pd overestimated it by about 12%.

A dynamic model for the estimation of optimum timing of computed tomography scan for dose evaluation of 125I or 103Pd seed implant of prostate.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The dosimetric evaluation of permanent 125I or 103Pd prostate implant is based on the assumption that both prostate and seeds are static throughout the entire treatment time which lasts months. However, the prostate is often edematous after the surgical implantation of seeds. Therefore, both the volume of the prostate and the seed locations change dynamically as the edema resolves. This effect has impact on the validity of postimplant analysis based upon a CT scan. If a CT scan is taken too early after implantation while there is edema in the prostate, the dose delivered by the implant may be underestimated. If the imaging is delayed too long, the dose may be overestimated. The magnitude of this effect depends on both of the half-life of the isotope used and the half-life and magnitude of the edema. This study describes a dynamic biomathematical model which takes edema into account in calculating the dose delivered by the implant and is used to investigate the optimum time to obtain the postimplant CT scan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The dynamic biomathematical model is a numerical integration of the accumulated dose in which the prostate dimensions, the seed locations, and the source strength are all functions of time. The function which describes the change in prostate dimensions and seed locations as a function of time was determined in a separate study by analysis of serial postimplant CT scans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) of the prostate for the total dose generated by the dynamic model are compared to DVHs generated by CT scans simulated for postimplant intervals ranging from 0 to 300 days after the implantation for 30 different combinations of the magnitude and duration of edema. RESULTS: DVHs of the prostate calculated by taking edema into account show that the time of obtaining a CT scan for postimplant analysis is critical to the accuracy of dose evaluations. The comparison of the DVHs generated by the dynamic model to those generated by the CT scans simulated for a range of postimplant intervals show that obtaining the CT scan too early tends to underestimate the total dose while obtaining the CT scan after the edema is resolved tends to overestimate it. The results show that the optimum timing of the CT scan depends upon the duration of the edema and the half-life of the radioisotope used. It is almost independent of the magnitude of the edema. Thus, a unique optimum time window for the imaging study cannot be defined for either 125I or 103Pd implants. However, an optimum time window can be identified for which the calculated dose, on the average, will generally differ from the actual dose by less than 5%, with a maximum error not exceeding 15%. Such a window is 4 to 10 weeks after the implantation for an 125I implant, and 2 to 4 weeks for a 103Pd implant. CONCLUSIONS: A dynamic biomathematical model to correct for the effects of edema in calculating the total dose delivered by an 125I or 103Pd seed implant has been developed. The model has been used to investigate the optimum time window during which the postimplant CT scans for analysis should be obtained.

The response of human tumour blood flow to a fractionated course of thermoradiotherapy.

The response of human tumour blood flow to a fractionated course of thermoradiotherapy was documented in four superficial but bulky tumours (three adenocarcinomas, one melanoma). Blood flow was measured 15, 30, 45, and 60 min after the onset of heating. These measurements were made at the same intra-tumour point during each heat fraction by use of a modified thermal clearance technique in which a correction was made for the heat dissipated by thermal conduction. This point was at least 2 cm beneath the surface in the central portion of the tumour. Extracellular pH was measured within 1 cm of this point prior to the first heat fraction and 2-3 weeks later. Hyperthermia was administered for 60 min, twice a week for 4 weeks by use of a 16-channel 915 MHz microwave applicator. Each patient also received a radiation dose of 40 Gy fractionated at 2 Gy/fx, five times a week (adenocarcinomas) or 4 Gy/fx, twice a week (melanoma). Blood flow remained relatively constant during heating after steady state conditions were attained. However, an overall decrease in tumour blood flow was observed in each patient over the course of thermoradiotherapy. In each case, a relatively small decrease in blood flow occurred between most heat fractions which resulted in an overall decrease which ranged from 50-100%. However, there was a tendency for blood flow to increase following the initial heat fraction at points where the steady state temperature was approximately 41 degrees C or less. Extracellular pH increased in two of three patients and decreased in the other.

Edema associated with I-125 or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy and its impact on post-implant dosimetry: an analysis based on serial CT acquisition.

PURPOSE: To characterize the magnitude and duration of post-implant edema following the implantation of I-125 or Pd-103 seeds into the prostate and to investigate its effect on the CT-based calculation of the total dose delivered by the implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-implant CT scan and 3 to 5 serial post-implant CT scans were obtained on 10 patients who received either I-125 or Pd-103 seed implants. None of the patients received hormone therapy. The magnitude and duration of edema were determined from the change in the spatial distribution of the implanted seeds as the edema resolves. Dose volume histograms were compiled to determine the percentage of the prostate volume that received a dose equal to, or greater than, the prescribed dose. RESULTS: The magnitude of the edema, expressed as the ratio of the post- to pre-implant volume on the day of the procedure, ranged from 1.33 to 1.96 (mean 1.52). The edema decreased exponentially with time; however, the edema half-life (time for the edema to decrease by 1/2) varied from 4 to 25 days (mean 9.3 days). As the edema resolved, the percentage of the prostate that received a dose equal to or greater than the prescribed dose increased by at least 7% in 7 of the 10 patients and increased by more than 15% in 2. In those patients in whom dose coverage was unaffected by the resolution of edema, more than 90% of the prostate was covered by the prescribed dose in the initial CT scan. CONCLUSION: Post-implant edema increased the prostate volume by factors which ranged from 1.33 to 1.96 (mean: 1.52). The edema resolved exponentially with an edema half-life which varied from 4 to 25 days (mean: 9.3 days). Edema had a significant effect on the post-implant dosimetry in 7 of 10 cases. Factors that affect the impact of edema on the dosimetry are the magnitude of the edema and the planned margin between the prescribed isodose line and the periphery of the prostate.

A prospective, randomized study addressing the need for physical simulation following virtual simulation.

PURPOSE: To accurately implement a treatment plan obtained by virtual or CT simulation, conventional or physical simulation is still widely used. To evaluate the need for physical simulation, we prospectively randomized patients to undergo physical simulation or no additional simulation after virtual simulation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From July 1995 to September 1996, 75 patients underwent conformal four-field radiation therapy planning for prostate cancer with a commercial grade CT simulator. The patients were randomized to undergo either port filming immediately following physical simulation or port filming alone. The precision of implementing the devised plan was evaluated by comparing simulator radiographs and/or port films against the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) for x, y, and z displacements of the isocenter. Changes in beam aperture were also prospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to undergo physical simulation and first day port filming, and 38 had first day treatment verification films only without a physical simulation. Seventy-eight simulator radiographs and 195 first day treatment port films were reviewed. There was no statistically significant reduction in treatment setup error (>5 mm) if patients underwent physical simulation following virtual simulation. No patient required a resimulation, and there was no significant difference in changes of beam aperture. CONCLUSIONS: Following virtual simulation, physical simulation may not be necessary to accurately implement the conformal four-field technique. Because port filming appears to be sufficient to assure precise and reliable execution of a devised treatment plan, physical simulation may be eliminated from the process of CT based planning when virtual simulation is available.

Effect of edema on the post-implant dosimetry of an I-125 prostate implant: a case study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of post-implant edema on the CT-based calculation of the total dose delivered by an I-125 prostate implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans of a transperineal I-125 prostate implant were obtained 1 and 39-days post-implant. Changes in the prostate dimensions were determined from changes in the spatial distribution of the I-125 seeds. The total dose delivered to the target volume was computed from each CT scan, and the results compared. RESULTS: The volume of the prostate decreased by approximately 17% during the 38-day interval between the first and second CT scans. As a result, the radiation dose computed from the second CT scan was 13% higher. CONCLUSION: Post-implant edema can cause a significant underestimation of the radiation dose delivered by an I-125 prostate implant. Similar analysis should be carried out among a larger cohort of patients to confirm or refute these observations.

Anisotropy of an 192iridium high dose rate source measured with a miniature ionization chamber.

The anisotropy of a high dose rate (HDR) 192Ir source was measured in air and in water using a miniature (0.147 cm3) ionization chamber. Measurements were made at a distance of 5 cm from the source center at polar angles from 10 degrees-170 degrees. The anisotropy was found to be less pronounced in water, and the anisotropy is asymmetric about the transverse axis. The results agree with previous ionization chamber and TLD measurements to within +/- 4%. Mean anisotropy factors were determined at each angle from all existing data at 5 cm distance, and compared to published Monte Carlo calculations, and to the values used in the microSelectron HDR brachytherapy planning system (BPS). The Monte Carlo photon transport code appears to systematically underestimate the anisotropy factor by up to 4% in the forward direction and overestimate it by up to 3% in the backward direction. The mean anisotropy factors also indicate that the BPS systematically underestimates the anisotropy factor by up to 3% in the forward direction, and overestimates it by up to 15% in the backward direction. However, the 15% difference occurs at 180 degrees where it is not likely to be clinically significant.

Efficient CT simulation of the four-field technique for conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma relies on contouring of individual CT slices for target and normal tissue localization. This process can be very time consuming. In the present report, we describe a method to more efficiently localize pelvic anatomy directly from digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with prostate carcinoma underwent CT simulation (the spiral mode at 3 mm separation) for conformal four-field "box" radiotherapy. The bulbous urethra and bladder were opacified with iodinated contrast media. On lateral and anteroposterior DRRs, the volume of interest (VOI) was restricted to 1.0-1.5 cm tissue thickness to optimize digital radiograph reconstruction of the prostate and seminal vesicles. By removing unessential voxel elements, this method provided direct visualization of those structures. For comparison, the targets of each patient were also obtained by contouring CT axial slices. RESULTS: The method was successfully performed if the target structures were readily visualized and geometrically corresponded to those generated by contouring axial images. The targets in 9 of 10 patients were reliable representations of the CT-contoured volumes. One patient had 18 mm variation due to the lack of bladder opacification. Using VOIs to generate thin tissue DRRs, the time required for target and normal tissue localization was on the average less than 5 min. CONCLUSION: In CT simulation of the four-field irradiation technique for prostate carcinoma, thin-tissue DRRs allowed for efficient and accurate target localization without requiring individual axial image contouring. This method may facilitate positioning of the beam isocenter and provide reliable conformal radiotherapy.

A dosimetry system for 192IR interstitial breast implants performed at the time of lumpectomy.

PURPOSE: 192Ir interstitial breast implants performed at the time of lumpectomy present a unique problem because they cannot be preplanned, and yet they are expected to produce a treatment dose rate (TDR) from 0.3 to 0.5 Gy/h using sources already procured. The purpose of this work is to describe a system of dosimetry that works within these constraints and has been used to perform more than 600 such implants. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The underlying principle is to fix the ribbon spacing, the interplaner separation, and the linear activity (1 mCi/cm) so that the TDR will depend only on the area (L x W) implanted. The ribbons are spaced 1.5 cm and 2.0 cm apart in single plane and double implants, respectively. Idealized implants were used to study the TDR as a function of the implant dimensions, and to study the effects of varying the ribbon spacing and interplanar separation. Volume-dose histograms were generated to study the homogeneity of dose. RESULTS: The TDRs of single plane implants range from 0.3 Gy/h for small 4 x 4 cm2 implants to 0.4 Gy/h for large 10 x 10 cm2 implants. The TDRs for double plane implants are similar for the same range of dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Implants with a TDR between 0.3 and 0.5 Gy/h can be performed for a wide range of geometries without preplanning using fixed ribbons spacings of 1.5 and 2.0 cm for single and double plane implants, respectively, and a linear activity of 1 mCi/cm.