PURPOSE: To compare target volume coverage and critical organ dosimetry of intraoperative treatment plans for loose seed (LS) and stranded seed (SS) 125I permanent implants for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS: Two hundred and five patients who underwent permanent seed brachytherapy were included in the study. For prostate dosimetry V90, V100, V150, V200, D90 and COIN were used. The dose to urethra and rectum was determined by the maximal dose and relative doses that cover specified volumes. Means and standard deviations were calculated and statistically compared.
RESULTS: On average, 54 (range, 30-78) and 48 (range, 31-67) seeds were implanted in the prostate with individual median activities of 0.62 U (range, 0.52-0.70 U) and 0.71 U (range, 0.65-0.71 U) for LS and SS technique, respectively. The target coverage was slightly better with SS (V100: 98% vs. 96%,p < 0.05; D90: 172 Gy vs. 166 Gy, p < 0.05), but more conformal dose distributions were observed with LS (COIN: 0.70 vs. 0.63, p < 0.05). The dose homogeneity did not differ significantly between the two groups. Regarding the dose to urethra and rectum all dose parameters were significantly lower with LS.
CONCLUSIONS: LS resulted in less dose to the urethra and rectum compared to SS in intraoperative dosimetry. A slightly better target volume coverage with decreased conformity of dose distribution is reported with SS. More studies are necessary to determine how these results will affect postoperative dosimetry, and ultimately, clinical outcome.
Major T, Agoston P, Fröhlich G, Baricza K, Szabo Z, Jorgo K, Herein A, Polgar C. Are you the author?
Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, 7-9. Rath Gy. u., H-1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Reference: Phys Med. 2014 Aug 28. pii: S1120-1797(14)00514-6.