Displacement patterns of stranded I-125 seeds after permanent brachytherapy of the prostate: Dosimetry in the operating room put into perspective.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reliability of post-implant dosimetry in the OR depends on the geometrical variability of implant and anatomy after the procedure. The purpose was to gain detailed information on seed displacement patterns in different sectors of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 33 patients with stranded seed implants the seed geometry and the dose distribution were compared between the situation in the OR just after the procedure, based on ultrasound images, and the situation after 1month, based on registered CT and MR images. RESULTS: There was a substantial displacement of ventral seeds of 3.8±2.5mm in caudal direction (p<0.001). Of these ventral seeds cranially located seeds moved more than caudally located seeds, 4.5±2.7mm and 2.9±2.6mm, respectively (p<0.001). The D90 in the dorsal-caudal and ventral-caudal sectors increased with respectively 44±20Gy and 29±28Gy (p<0.001) and decreased with 17±31Gy in the ventral-cranial sector (p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial changes in dose distribution 1month after the procedure, mainly due to implant and prostate shrinkage and displacement of ventral seed strands in caudal direction. When performing dynamic dosimetry or dosimetry at the end of the procedure the effect of these phenomena has to be taken into account when using stranded seeds.

Is there a relation between the radiation dose to the different sub-segments of the lower urinary tract and urinary morbidity after brachytherapy of the prostate with I-125 seeds?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate possible relationships between the dose to the sub-segments of the lower urinary tract and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after brachytherapy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study involved 225 patients treated for prostate cancer with I-125 seeds. Post-implant dose-volume histograms of the prostate, urethra, bladder wall, bladder neck and external sphincter were determined. Endpoints were the mean and the maximum International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) during the first 3months after the treatment. For binary analysis the patients were stratified in a group with enhanced LUTS and a group with non-enhanced LUTS. RESULTS: The dose to 0.5cm(3) of the bladder neck 'D0.5cc-blne' (p=0.002 and p=0.005), the prostate volume prior to treatment 'Vpr-0' (p=0.005 and p=0.024) and the pre-treatment IPSS (both p<0.001) were independently correlated with mean and maximum IPSS, respectively. Of the patients with a D0.5cc-blne⩾175Gy and a Vpr-0⩾42cm(3), 68% suffered from enhanced LUTS, against just 30% of the other patients (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment IPSS, prostate volume and dose to the bladder neck are correlated with post-implant IPSS. A combination of a large prostate and a high dose to the bladder neck is highly predictive for enhanced early LUTS.

MR and CT based treatment planning for mTHPC mediated interstitial photodynamic therapy of head and neck cancer: description of the method.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Interstitial photodynamic therapy is a potentially important tool in the management of voluminous or deep-seated recurrent head and neck cancers. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: The described treatment algorithm in this manuscript consists of the treatment simulation, implantation of light sources, verification, modification of the treatment plan if necessary, and illumination. The tumor is delineated on imaging sections (CT, MRI, and/or PET/CT) and the treatment is simulated by virtually introducing light sources to the tumor volume on specially modified brachytherapy software. This enables us to determine if the treatment is technically feasible, and information about approximate number and location of light sources necessary. Following implantation of catheters in which the light sources will be introduced, CT or MR scan is performed to verify the actual location of the implanted catheters. The verification-CT is imported to the software and co-registered with pre-treatment images to observe the deviations from the simulation. The simulation is run again with the actual position of the light sources to determine if any additional light sources are necessary and adaptation of the source length in order to cover the tumor volume (modification). Thereafter the tumor is illuminated. RESULTS: This method has the potential to help with identifying iPDT feasible patients by simulating before the actual treatment. The suboptimal placement of light sources can be identified and corrected. The simulations were documented and saved for subsequent evaluation of the technique. CONCLUSION: The proposed technique can help standardize and document iPDT.