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!
|
| container_end_page | 384 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 378 |
| container_title | Radiotherapy and oncology |
| container_volume | 80 |
| creator | Meijer, Gert J. van den Berg, Hetty A. Hurkmans, Coen W. Stijns, Pascal E. Weterings, Jan H. |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.038 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68889460</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S016781400600315X</els_id><sourcerecordid>68889460</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-88cc5b12d87be5f93d4976b4132d71e785b465e42304bf6bcc908791619d1e7a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE9r3DAQxUVpabZJvkEpPvVmd2TLknwJlPRPAoFemrOQpTHRYluOpA3st8-EXeitJ0nM7z29eYx95tBw4PLbvknWx9U1LYBsQDXQ6Xdsx7UaatBavWc7wlStuYAL9innPQC00KmP7ILLoQPVdzvmf8QcFiwpuMrFZbMp5LhWcarCWjBZV8ILVtts1xV9ZVdf-eNqF6J9zFg5O7vDbAvNthRzoVuVkV4jSZ-O5YkstuMV-zDZOeP1-bxkj79-_r29qx_-_L6__f5QO9HKUmvtXD_y1ms1Yj8NnReDkqPgXesVR6X7UcgeRduBGCc5OjcAbcslHzyNbXfJvp58KcvzAXMxS8gOZ0qP8ZCN1FoPQgKB4gQ6Cp0TTmZLYbHpaDiYt3bN3pzaNW_tGlCG2iXZl7P_YVzQ_xOd6yTg5gQgbfkSMJnsAq4OfUjoivEx_P-HV-MBjts</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68889460</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Meijer, Gert J. ; van den Berg, Hetty A. ; Hurkmans, Coen W. ; Stijns, Pascal E. ; Weterings, Jan H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Meijer, Gert J. ; van den Berg, Hetty A. ; Hurkmans, Coen W. ; Stijns, Pascal E. ; Weterings, Jan H.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-8140</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0887</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.038</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16930753</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>125I ; Algorithms ; Brachytherapy ; Brachytherapy - methods ; Dynamic dose calculation ; Humans ; Iodine Radioisotopes - therapeutic use ; Male ; Needles ; Postimplant dosimetry ; Prostate ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Radiology, Interventional ; Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiotherapy, Conformal - methods ; Rectum ; Retrospective Studies ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Urethra</subject><ispartof>Radiotherapy and oncology, 2006-09, Vol.80 (3), p.378-384</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-88cc5b12d87be5f93d4976b4132d71e785b465e42304bf6bcc908791619d1e7a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-88cc5b12d87be5f93d4976b4132d71e785b465e42304bf6bcc908791619d1e7a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.038$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16930753$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meijer, Gert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Berg, Hetty A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurkmans, Coen W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stijns, Pascal E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weterings, Jan H.</creatorcontrib><title>Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy</title><title>Radiotherapy and oncology</title><addtitle>Radiother Oncol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>125I</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Brachytherapy</subject><subject>Brachytherapy - methods</subject><subject>Dynamic dose calculation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Iodine Radioisotopes - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Needles</subject><subject>Postimplant dosimetry</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Radiology, Interventional</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Conformal - methods</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Urethra</subject><issn>0167-8140</issn><issn>1879-0887</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE9r3DAQxUVpabZJvkEpPvVmd2TLknwJlPRPAoFemrOQpTHRYluOpA3st8-EXeitJ0nM7z29eYx95tBw4PLbvknWx9U1LYBsQDXQ6Xdsx7UaatBavWc7wlStuYAL9innPQC00KmP7ILLoQPVdzvmf8QcFiwpuMrFZbMp5LhWcarCWjBZV8ILVtts1xV9ZVdf-eNqF6J9zFg5O7vDbAvNthRzoVuVkV4jSZ-O5YkstuMV-zDZOeP1-bxkj79-_r29qx_-_L6__f5QO9HKUmvtXD_y1ms1Yj8NnReDkqPgXesVR6X7UcgeRduBGCc5OjcAbcslHzyNbXfJvp58KcvzAXMxS8gOZ0qP8ZCN1FoPQgKB4gQ6Cp0TTmZLYbHpaDiYt3bN3pzaNW_tGlCG2iXZl7P_YVzQ_xOd6yTg5gQgbfkSMJnsAq4OfUjoivEx_P-HV-MBjts</recordid><startdate>20060901</startdate><enddate>20060901</enddate><creator>Meijer, Gert J.</creator><creator>van den Berg, Hetty A.</creator><creator>Hurkmans, Coen W.</creator><creator>Stijns, Pascal E.</creator><creator>Weterings, Jan H.</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060901</creationdate><title>Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy</title><author>Meijer, Gert J. ; van den Berg, Hetty A. ; Hurkmans, Coen W. ; Stijns, Pascal E. ; Weterings, Jan H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-88cc5b12d87be5f93d4976b4132d71e785b465e42304bf6bcc908791619d1e7a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>125I</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Brachytherapy</topic><topic>Brachytherapy - methods</topic><topic>Dynamic dose calculation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Iodine Radioisotopes - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Needles</topic><topic>Postimplant dosimetry</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Radiology, Interventional</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Conformal - methods</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Urethra</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meijer, Gert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Berg, Hetty A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurkmans, Coen W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stijns, Pascal E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weterings, Jan H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiotherapy and oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meijer, Gert J.</au><au>van den Berg, Hetty A.</au><au>Hurkmans, Coen W.</au><au>Stijns, Pascal E.</au><au>Weterings, Jan H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy</atitle><jtitle>Radiotherapy and oncology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiother Oncol</addtitle><date>2006-09-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>378</spage><epage>384</epage><pages>378-384</pages><issn>0167-8140</issn><eissn>1879-0887</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>16930753</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.038</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0167-8140 |
| ispartof | Radiotherapy and oncology, 2006-09, Vol.80 (3), p.378-384 |
| issn | 0167-8140 1879-0887 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68889460 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | 125I Algorithms Brachytherapy Brachytherapy - methods Dynamic dose calculation Humans Iodine Radioisotopes - therapeutic use Male Needles Postimplant dosimetry Prostate Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy Radiology, Interventional Radiopharmaceuticals - therapeutic use Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods Radiotherapy, Conformal - methods Rectum Retrospective Studies Tomography, X-Ray Computed Urethra |
| title | Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T20%3A17%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dosimetric%20comparison%20of%20interactive%20planned%20and%20dynamic%20dose%20calculated%20prostate%20seed%20brachytherapy&rft.jtitle=Radiotherapy%20and%20oncology&rft.au=Meijer,%20Gert%20J.&rft.date=2006-09-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=378&rft.epage=384&rft.pages=378-384&rft.issn=0167-8140&rft.eissn=1879-0887&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.038&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68889460%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68889460&rft_id=info:pmid/16930753&rft_els_id=S016781400600315X&rfr_iscdi=true |