No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Single- and dual-source-strength focal boost planning in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: feasibility study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 July 2023
Abstract
Introduction:
This study investigates the dose escalation to dominant intra-prostatic lesions (DILs) that is achievable using single-source-strength (SSS) and dual-source-strength (DSS) low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy and a sector-based plan approach.
Methods:
Twenty patients were retrospectively analysed. Image registration and planning were undertaken using VariSeed v9·0. SSS and DSS boost plans were produced and compared to clinical plans. Dosimetric robustness to seed displacement for SSS and DSS plans was compared to clinical plans using Monte Carlo simulations.
Results:
Fourteen out of 20 patients had DIL identifiable on magnetic resonance imaging. Median increase in sector D90 of 27% (p < 0·0001) and sector V150 of 31% (p < 0·0001) was achieved with SSS planning without exceeding local rectum and urethra dose constraints. DSS plans achieved dose distributions not statistically significantly different from the SSS plans with a median of eight fewer seeds and two fewer needles. SSS and DSS plan sensitivity to random seed displacement was similar to the clinical plans.
Conclusions:
Treatment planning using VariSeed to produce SSS and DSS focal boost plans is feasible for LDR prostate brachytherapy to achieve a median escalation in sector D90 of 27% without exceeding local urethral and rectal constraints. SSS and DSS plan dosimetric robustness was similar to clinical plan dosimetric robustness.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Henry, A, Pieters, BR, Siebert, FA et al. GEC-ESTRO ACROP prostate brachytherapy guidelines. Radiother Oncol 2022; 167: 244–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauman, G, Haider, M, Van der Heide, UA et al. Boosting imaging defined dominant prostatic tumors: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107 (3): 274–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pucar, D, Hricak, H, Shukla-Dave, A et al. Clinically significant prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation therapy occurs at the site of primary tumor: magnetic resonance imaging and step-section pathology evidence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69 (1): 62–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollack, A, Zagars, GK, Starkschall, G et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the MD Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 53 (5): 1097–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkmeijer, LG, Groen, VH, Pos, FJ et al. Focal boost to the intraprostatic tumor in external beam radiotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer: results from the FLAME randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39 (7): 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J, Bownes, P, Carey, B et al. Comparison of focal boost high dose rate prostate brachytherapy optimisation methods. Radiother Oncol 2015; 117 (3):521–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaudet, M, Vigneault, É, Aubin, S et al. Dose escalation to the dominant intraprostatic lesion defined by sextant biopsy in a permanent prostate I-125 implant: a prospective comparative toxicity analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77 (1):153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahdavi, SS, Spadinger, IT, Salcudean, SE et al. Focal application of low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: a pilot study. J. Contemp Brachytherapy 2017; 9 (3): 197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, M, Wang, JZ, Nag, S et al. Effects of seed migration on post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy. Med Phys 2007; 34 (2): 471–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, ID, Meskell, PM, Lieberfarb, M et al. A comparison of the precision of seeds deposited as loose seeds versus suture embedded seeds: a randomized trial. Brachytherapy 2004; 3 (1): 7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivard, MJ, Ballester, F, Butler, WM et al. Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: joint recommendations by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO. Med Phys 2017; 44 (9): e297–e338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Qaisieh, B, Mason, J, Bownes, P et al. Dosimetry modeling for focal low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 92 (4): 787–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, J, Al-Qaisieh, B, Bownes, P et al. Monte Carlo investigation of I-125 interseed attenuation for standard and thinner seeds in prostate brachytherapy with phantom validation using a MOSFET. Med Phys 2013; 40 (3): 031717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, H, Masui, K, Suzuki, G et al. High-dose-rate brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy versus low-dose-rate brachytherapy with or without external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (1): 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, J, Al-Qaisieh, B, Bownes, P et al. Multi-parametric MRI-guided focal tumor boost using HDR prostate brachytherapy: a feasibility study. Brachytherapy. 2014; 13(2):137–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tissaverasinghe, S, Crook, J, Bachand, F et al. Dose to the dominant intraprostatic lesion using HDR vs. LDR monotherapy: a Phase II randomized trial. Brachytherapy 20; 18 (3): 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahdavi, SS, Spadinger, IT, Chng, NT et al. Robustness to source displacement in dual air kerma strength planning for focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2016; 15 (5): 642–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narayana, V, Troyer, S, Evans, V et al. Randomized trial of high-and low-source strength 125I prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61(1): 44–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed