Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:23:32.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CT-based post-implant dosimetry for I-125 prostate brachytherapy: a multi-centre audit in the UK and Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

O. Hayman  and
A. Palmer
O. Hayman*
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
A. Palmer
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
*
Correspondence to: Orla Hayman, Medical Physics Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, Portsmouth PO6 3LY, UK. Tel: 02392286000 ext 4087. E-mail: Orla.hayman@porthosp.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background and purpose

To assess the reliability of post-implant CT (PICT) dosimetry for I-125 prostate seed brachytherapy by investigating the variation between centres in performing PICT through a multi-centre audit.

Materials and methods

Computerised tomography data sets from four I-125 prostate brachytherapy patients were circulated to nine participating centres. Centres followed local protocol for PICT outlining and seed identification, dosimetry for D90, V100 and V150 for the prostate was reported. Outlines were compared to determine the variation in: quality parameters (D90, V100 and V150), dose-volume histograms and approach to PICT dosimetry between the centres.

Results

There was significant variation in the prostate outlines drawn by the nine centres; for a prostate with mean volume 43 cm3, the range was 39–57 cm3 which led to variations of D90 of 119–154 Gy (mean 140 Gy) and V100 of 80–93% (mean of 88%). Using automatic seedfinder software reduced discrepancies between centres identifying seeds; overall consistency in seed location was good.

Conclusions

There was a significant uncertainty in the outlining of the prostate volume for PICT dosimetry with an uncertainty value of around ± 20 Gy on D90. PICT is a valuable technique but its accuracy and consistency limitations must be appreciated.

Keywords

auditinterdepartmental auditI-125 brachytherapypost-implant dosimetryprostate brachytherapy
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 297 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Vigneri, P, Sherati, A, Potters, L. The second decade of prostate brachytherapy: evidence and cost based outcomes. Urol Oncol 2010; 28: 86–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Nag, S, Bice, W, DeWyngaert, Ket al. The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy post implant dosimetry analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Salember, C, Lavagnini, P, Nickers, Pet al. Tumour and target volumes in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Ash, D, Flynn, A, Ballermann, Jet al. ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000; 57: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Hagan, M P, Habeeb, S, Moore, M, Williamson, J. Regulatory evaluation of prostate volume implants: pitfalls of a retrospective assessment. Brachytherapy 2011; 10: 385–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Potters, L, Cao, Y, Calugaru, E, Torre, T, Fern, P, Wang, X-H. A comprehensive review of CT based dosimetry parameters and biochemical control in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 50: 605–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Stock, R G, Stone, N N, Tabert, A, Iannuzzi, C, DeWyngaert, J K. A dose response study for I-125 prostate Implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41: 101–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Narayana, Y, Roberson, P L, Winfield, R J, McLaughlin, P W. Impact of ultrasound and computed tomography prostate volume registration on evaluation of permanent prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39: 341–346.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Yu, Y, Anderson, L, Li, Zet al. Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64. Med Phys 1999; 26: 2054–2076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Al-Qaisieh, B, Ash, D, Bottemley, D M, Carey, B M. Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2002; 62: 267–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Mzenda, B, Palmer, A, Hayman, O. The impact of prostate outlining inaccuracies on reported quality metrics for prostate seed brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78: S366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Palmer, A, Mzenda, B, Kearton, J, Wills, R. Analysis of regional radiotherapy dosimetry audit data and recommendations for future audits. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 733–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Al-Qaisieh, B. Pre- and post-implant dosimetry: an inter-comparison between UK prostate brachytherapy centres. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66: 181–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Rivard, M, Coursey, B, DeWerd, Let al. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: a revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys 2004; 31: 633–670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Crook, J, Milosevic, M, Catton, Pet al. Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2002; 1: 66–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed