Prostate cancer brachytherapy: is real-time ultrasound-based dosimetry predictive of subsequent CT-based dose distribution calculation? A study of 450 patients by the Institut Curie/Hospital Cochin (Paris) Group.
OBJECTIVE
Real-time ultrasound (US)-based dosimetry performed during (125)I loose seed implantation provides the radiation oncologist with an estimation of the dose distribution at seed insertion. However, for a number of reasons, this distribution may not reflect the real (reference) dosimetry as determined by subsequent CT, usually performed 1-2 months after implantation. The present study compared the two dosimetry data sets (US and CT) to evaluate how predictive extemporaneous US-based dosimetry can be of the real dose distribution.


METHODS
A total of 450 patients with prostate cancer were treated with loose (125)I seed implantation between June 1999 and October 2002 by the Institut Curie/Hospital Cochin (Paris) Group. The mean patient age was 65 years. Most patients (74%) had Stage T1c; the stage did not exceed T2b for the others. All patients had a prostate-specific antigen level of <15 ng/mL and was <10 ng/mL for 72%; 84% had a Gleason score of < or =6 and did not exceed 7 for the others; and 56% were treated with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for a mean of 4.3 months. All patients were treated with loose seed implantation. Real-time US-based dosimetry was performed intraoperatively for all patients. CT-based dosimetry was performed 2 months after implantation, using the VariSeed software. The minimal dose to 90% of the outlined volume (D(90)) and percentage of volume receiving at least 100% of the prescribed dose (V(100)) were calculated with the two methods and compared for all patients.


RESULTS
On CT-based dosimetry, the D(90) was found to be > or =145 Gy (range, 115-240 Gy) in all patients except one. A large majority (86%) of patients showed a CT-based V(100) of >95%, and 48% had a V(100) of >98%. The mean CT-based D(90)/US-based D(90) ratio was 1.0 (range, 0.66-1.33). For 89% of the patients, the difference between the two values was <20% and for 62% was <10%. The mean CT-based V(100)/US-based V(100) ratio was 0.98 (range, 0-1.02), with 89% of patients showing a difference of <5%.


CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that the D(90) and V(100) values obtained intraoperatively with our real-time US-based dosimetry are in reasonable agreement with the subsequent values obtained with CT-based dosimetry performed 2 months after implantation. Recent innovations in our dose planning software allowed better control of the longitudinal seed position and could still improve the correlation between real-time US-based dosimetry and the subsequent CT-based dose distribution.
Chauveinc
Laurent
L
Department of Oncology/Radiotherapy, Institut Curie, Paris, France. laurent.chauveinc@curie.net
Flam
Thierry
T
Solignac
Suzette
S
Thiounn
Nicolas
N
Firmin
Francis
F
Debré
Bernard
B
Rosenwald
Jean-Claude
JC
Phlips
Patricia
P
Cosset
Jean-Marc
JM
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001918:Brachytherapy / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007457:Iodine Radioisotopes / Q000627:therapeutic use; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D018084:Ultrasonography, Interventional
D007457:Iodine Radioisotopes