The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of edema on the dose delivered to the target volume. An evaluation of the edema characteristics was first made, and then a dynamical dosimetry algorithm was developed and used to compare its results to a standard clinical (static) dosimetry. Source positions and prostate contours extracted from 66 clinical cases on images taken at different points in time (planning, implant day, post-implant evaluation) were used, via the mean interseed distance, to characterize edema [initial increase (deltar0), half-life (tau)]. An algorithm was developed to take into account the edema by summing a time series of dose-volume histograms (DVHs) with a weight based on the fraction of the dose delivered during the time interval considered. The algorithm was then used to evaluate the impact of edema on the dosimetry of permanent implants by comparing its results to those of a standard clinical dosimetry. The volumetric study yielded results as follows: the initial prostate volume increase was found to be 1.58 (ranging from 1.15 to 2.48) and the edema half-life, approximately 30 days (range: 3 to 170 days). The dosimetric differences in D90 observed between the dynamic dosimetry and the clinical one for a single case were up to 15 Gy and depended on the edema half-life and the initial volume increase. The average edema half-life, 30 days, is about 3 times longer than the previously reported 9 days. Dosimetric differences up to 10% of the prescription dose are observed, which can lead to differences in the quality assertion of an implant. The study of individual patient edema resorption with time might be necessary to extract meaningful clinical correlation or biological parameters in permanent implants.
The robustness of treatment planning to prostatic edema for three different isotopes (125I, 103Pd, and 131Cs) is explored using dynamical dose calculations on 25 different clinical prostate cases. The treatment plans were made using the inverse planning by simulated annealing (IPSA) algorithm. The prescription was 144, 127, and 125 Gy for 125I, 131Cs, and 103Pd, respectively. For each isotope, three dose distribution schemes were used to impose different protection levels to the urethra: V120 = 0%, V150 = 0%, and V150 = 30%. Eleven initial edema values were considered ranging from 1.0 (no edema) to 2.0 (100%). The edema was assumed to resolve exponentially with time. The prostate volume, seed positions, and seed activity were dynamically tracked to produce the final dose distribution. Edema decay half-lives of 10, 30, and 50 days were used. A total of 675 dynamical calculations were performed for each initial edema value. For the 125I isotope, limiting the urethra V120 to 0% leads to a prostate D90 under 140 Gy for initial edema values above 1.5. Planning with urethra V150 at 0% provides a good response to the edema; the prostate D90 remains higher than 140 Gy for edema values up to 1.8 and a half-life of 30 days or less. For 103Pd, the prostate D90 is under 97% of the prescription dose for approximately 66%, 40%, and 30% of edema values for urethra V120 = 0%, V150 = 0%, and V150 = 30%, respectively. Similar behavior is seen for 131Cs and the center of the prostate becomes "cold" for almost all edema scenarios. The magnitude of the edema following prostate brachytherapy, as well as the half-life of the isotope used and that of the edema resorption, all have important impacts on the dose distribution. The 125I isotope with its longer half-life is more robust to prostatic edema. Setting up good planning objectives can provide an adequate compromise between organ doses and robustness. This is even more important since seed misplacements will contribute to further degrade dose coverage.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.