During the past decade, permanent radioactive source implantation of the prostate has become the standard of care for selected prostate cancer patients, and the techniques for implantation have evolved in many different forms. Although most implants use 125I or 103Pd sources, clinical use of 131Cs sources has also recently been introduced. These sources produce different dose distributions and irradiate the tumors at different dose rates. Ultrasound was used originally to guide the planning and implantation of sources in the tumor. More recently, CT and/or MR are used routinely in many clinics for dose evaluation and planning. Several investigators reported that the tumor volumes and target volumes delineated from ultrasound, CT, and MR can vary substantially because of the inherent differences in these imaging modalities. It has also been reported that these volumes depend critically on the time of imaging after the implant. Many clinics, in particular those using intraoperative implantation, perform imaging only on the day of the implant. Because the effects of edema caused by surgical trauma can vary from one patient to another and resolve at different rates, the timing of imaging for dosimetry evaluation can have a profound effect on the dose reported (to have been delivered), i.e., for the same implant (same dose delivered), CT at different timing can yield different doses reported. Also, many different loading patterns and margins around the tumor volumes have been used, and these may lead to variations in the dose delivered. In this report, the current literature on these issues is reviewed, and the impact of these issues on the radiobiological response is estimated. The radiobiological models for the biological equivalent dose (BED) are reviewed. Starting with the BED model for acute single doses, the models for fractionated doses, continuous low-dose-rate irradiation, and both homogeneous and inhomogeneous dose distributions, as well as tumor cure probability models, are reviewed. Based on these developments in literature, the AAPM recommends guidelines for dose prescription from a physics perspective for routine patient treatment, clinical trials, and for treatment planning software developers. The authors continue to follow the current recommendations on using D90 and V100 as the primary quantitles, with more specific guidelines on the use of the imaging modalities and the timing of the imaging. The AAPM recommends that the postimplant evaluation should be performed at the optimum time for specific radionuclides. In addition, they encourage the use of a radiobiological model with a specific set of parameters to facilitate relative comparisons of treatment plans reported by different institutions using different loading patterns or radionuclides.

Since publication of the 2004 update to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report (TG-43U1), several new low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources have become available. Many of these sources have satisfied the AAPM prerequisites for routine clinical use as of January 10, 2005, and are posted on the Joint AAPM/RPC Brachytherapy Seed Registry. Consequently, the AAPM has prepared this supplement to the 2004 AAPM TG-43 update. This paper presents the AAPM-approved consensus datasets for these sources, and includes the following 125I sources: Amersham model 6733, Draximage model LS-1, Implant Sciences model 3500, IBt model 1251L, IsoAid model IAI-125A, Mentor model SL-125/ SH-125, and SourceTech Medical model STM1251. The Best Medical model 2335 103Pd source is also included. While the methodology used to determine these data sets is identical to that published in the AAPM TG-43U1 report, additional information and discussion are presented here on some questions that arose since the publication of the TG-43U1 report. Specifically, details of interpolation and extrapolation methods are described further, new methodologies are recommended, and example calculations are provided. Despite these changes, additions, and clarifications, the overall methodology, the procedures for developing consensus data sets, and the dose calculation formalism largely remain the same as in the TG-43U1 report. Thus, the AAPM recommends that the consensus data sets and resultant source-specific dose-rate distributions included in this supplement be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Adoption of these recommendations may result in changes to patient dose calculations, and these changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to implementation of the current protocol.

No abstract

The AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Calibration Working Group was formed to investigate and recommend quality control and quality assurance procedures for brachytherapy sources prior to clinical use. Compiling and clarifying recommendations established by previous AAPM Task Groups 40, 56, and 64 were among the working group's charges, which also included the role of third-party handlers to perform loading and assay of sources. This document presents the findings of the working group on the responsibilities of the institutional medical physicist and a clarification of the existing AAPM recommendations in the assay of brachytherapy sources. Responsibility for the performance and attestation of source assays rests with the institutional medical physicist, who must use calibration equipment appropriate for each source type used at the institution. Such equipment and calibration procedures shall ensure secondary traceability to a national standard. For each multi-source implant, 10% of the sources or ten sources, whichever is greater, are to be assayed. Procedures for presterilized source packaging are outlined. The mean source strength of the assayed sources must agree with the manufacturer's stated strength to within 3%, or action must be taken to resolve the difference. Third party assays do not absolve the institutional physicist from the responsibility to perform the institutional measurement and attest to the strength of the implanted sources. The AAPM leaves it to the discretion of the institutional medical physicist whether the manufacturer's or institutional physicist's measured value should be used in performing dosimetry calculations.

Cs (IsoRay Medical model CS-1 Rev2). Observations are included on the behavior of these dosimetry parameters as a function of radionuclide. Recommendations are presented on the selection of dosimetry parameters, such as from societal reports issuing consensus datasets (e.g., TG-43U1, AAPM Report #229), the joint AAPM/IROC Houston Registry, the GEC-ESTRO website, the Carleton University website, and those included in software releases from vendors of treatment planning systems. Aspects such as timeliness, maintenance, and rigor of these resources are discussed.Links to reference data are provided for radionuclides (radiation spectra and half-lives) and dose scoring materials (compositions and mass densities). The recent literature is examined on photon energy response corrections for thermoluminescent dosimetry of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Depending upon the dosimetry parameters currently used by individual physicists, use of these recommended consensus datasets may result in changes to patient dose calculations. These changes must be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to their implementation.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of transperineal template‐guided prostate mapping biopsy (TTMB) on urinary, bowel and erectile function. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 129 men had TTMB; a median of 56 biopsy cores were obtained per patient. Tamsulosin (0.8 mg daily) was initiated 2 days before TTMB and continued for 2 weeks. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Rectal Function Assessment Score (R‐FAS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)‐6 and the postvoid residual volume (PVR) were assessed at baseline and after 30 days, except for the IPSS, which was also assessed at 7 days. Several variables were evaluated as predictors of TTMB‐induced morbidity. RESULTS The mean patient age was 64.7 years with a mean prostate volume of 74.3 mL; 60 men (46.5%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. After TTMB, 39.4%, 7.1% and 1.6% of patients remained catheter‐dependent at 0, 3 and 6 days. The median catheter‐dependency was 0, 1, 2 and 3 days for prostate volumes of <60, 60–90, 90–120 and >120 mL, respectively. No patient remained catheter‐ dependent for >12 days or required a transurethral resection secondary to TTMB. The mean IPSS before TTMB was 10.4, and was 4.6 and 3.8 at 7 and 30 days. At baseline and 30 days the mean PVR was 35 and 40 mL, and the median R‐FAS and IIEF scores for patients potent before TTMB were 2.0 and 2.2, and 27.0 and 26.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS TTMB is a promising procedure for diagnosing prostate cancer. TTMB‐related morbidity differs from that of standard TRUS biopsy primarily in the incidence of temporary urinary retention, and is comparable in terms of urinary, bowel and erectile function.