These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dosimetry modeling for focal high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.
    Author: Mason J, Al-Qaisieh B, Bownes P, Thwaites D, Henry A.
    Journal: Brachytherapy; 2014; 13(6):611-7. PubMed ID: 25085456.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The dosimetry of focal high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy was assessed. Dose volume histogram parameters, robustness to source position errors, and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were compared for whole-gland (WG), hemi-gland (HEMI), and ultra-focal (UF) treatment plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tumor volumes were delineated based on MRI and template biopsy results for 9 patients. WG, HEMI, and UF plans were produced assuming 19 Gy single fraction monotherapy treatments. For UF plans, a 6-mm margin was applied to the visible tumor to create a focal-planning target volume (F-PTV). Systematic source position shifts of 1-4 mm were applied to assess plan robustness. The dosimetric impact of steel catheters was assessed using MC simulation. RESULTS: Mean D90 and V100 were 20.4 Gy and 97.9% for prostate in WG plans, 22.2 Gy and 98.1% for hemi-prostate in HEMI plans, and 23.0 Gy and 98.2% for F-PTV in UF plans. Mean urethra D10 was 20.3, 19.7, and 9.2 Gy in WG, HEMI, and UF plans, respectively. Mean rectal D2cc was 12.5, 9.8, and 4.6 Gy in WG, HEMI, and UF plans, respectively. Focal treatment plans were sensitive to source position errors-2 mm systematic shifts reduced mean prostate D90 by 0.7%, hemi-prostate D90 by 2.6%, and F-PTV D90 by 8.3% in WG, HEMI, and UF plans, respectively. MC simulation results were similar for all plan types with most dose volume histogram parameters reduced by <2%. CONCLUSIONS: HEMI and UF treatments can achieve higher D90 values compared with WG treatments with reduced organ at risk dose. Focal treatments are more sensitive to systematic source position errors than WG treatments.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]