Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy
To compare the dosimetrical results of an interactive planning procedure and a procedure based on dynamic dose calculation for permanent prostate brachytherapy. Between 6/2000 and 11/2005, 510 patients underwent 125I implants for T1–T2 prostate cancer. Before 4/2003, 187 patients were treated using...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Radiotherapy and oncology 2006-09, Vol.80 (3), p.378-384 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To compare the dosimetrical results of an interactive planning procedure and a procedure based on dynamic dose calculation for permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Between 6/2000 and 11/2005, 510 patients underwent
125I implants for T1–T2 prostate cancer. Before 4/2003, 187 patients were treated using an interactive technique that included needle updating. After that period, 323 patients were treated with a more refined dynamic technique that included constant updating of the deposited seed position. The comparison is based on postimplant dose–volume parameters such as the
V
100 and
d
90 for the target,
V
100
r
for the rectum and
d
10
u
for the urethra. Furthermore, the target volume ratios
(
TVR
≡
V
100
body
/
V
100
)
, and the homogeneity indices (HI
≡
[
V
100
−
V
150]/
V
100) were calculated as additional quality parameters.
The dose outside the target volume was significantly reduced, the
V
100
r
decreased from 1.4
cm
3 for the interactive technique to 0.6
cm
3 for the dynamic technique. Similarly the mean TVR reduced from 1.66 to 1.44. In addition, the mean
V
100 increased from 92% for the interactive procedure to 95% for the dynamic procedure. More importantly, the percentage of patients with a
V
100
<
80% reduced from 5% to 1%. A slight decline was observed with regard to the
d
10
u
(136% vs. 140%) and the HI (0.58 vs. 0.51).
The dynamic implant procedure resulted in improved implants. Almost ideal dose coverage was achieved, while minimizing the dose outside the prostate. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0167-8140 1879-0887 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.038 |