In postimplant dosimetry for prostate brachytherapy,dose is commonly calculated using the TG-43 1D formalism, because seed orientations are difficult to determine from CTimages, the current standard for the procedure. However, the orientation of stranded seeds soon after implantation is predictable, as these seeds tend to maintain their relative spacing, and orient themselves along the implant trajectory. The aim of this study was to develop a method for determining seed orientations from reconstructed strand trajectories, and to use this information to investigate the dosimetric impact of applying the TG-43 2D formalism to clinical postimplant analysis.Methods:
Using in-house software, the preplan to postimplant seed correspondence was determined for a cohort of 30 patients during routine day-0 CT-based postimplant dosimetry. All patients were implanted with stranded-seed trains. Spline curves were fit to each set of seeds composing a strand, with the requirement that the distance along the spline between seeds be equal to the seed spacing within the strand. The orientations of the seeds were estimated by the tangents to the spline at each seed centroid. Dose distributions were then determined using the 1D and 2D TG-43 formalisms. These were compared using the TG-137 recommended dose metrics for the prostate, prostatic urethra, and rectum.Results:
Seven hundred and sixty one strands were analyzed in total. Defining thez-axis to be cranial-positive and the x-axis to be left-lateral positive in the CT coordinate system, the average seed had an inclination of 21° ± 10° and an azimuth of −81° ± 57°. These values correspond to the average strand rising anteriorly from apex to base, approximately parallel to the midsagittal plane. Clinically minor but statistically significant differences in dose metrics were noted. Compared to the 2D calculation, the 1D calculation underestimated prostate V100 by 1.1% and D90 by 2.3 Gy, while overestimating V150 and V200 by 1.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Urethral and rectal dose quantifiers tended to be underestimated by the 1D calculation. The most pronounced differences were in the urethral D30 and rectal D2cc, which rose by 3.8 and 1.9 Gy, respectively, using the 2D calculation. The total volume of the 100% isodose region as a percentage of the prostate volume was found to increase by 0.4%.Conclusions:
Stranded seeds in the supine patient are not oriented in a uniformly random manner, nor are they aligned along the axis of the CT scanner. Instead, this study identified a consistent anterior pitch that is likely attributable to differences in patient pose between implant and CTimaging. The angle of the ultrasound probe with respect to the patient during implant may have also been a contributing factor. The dose metrics derived using the 1D formalism were found to be within 2%, on average, of those derived using the 2D formalism. For greater accuracy, 2D dosimetry can be pursued using the strand-fitting method described in this work. If a 1D representation is used, integrating over the empirically determined seed orientation density reported here may be more appropriate than assuming that seed inclinations are distributed uniformly.
II.A. Study cohort
II.B. Plan reconstruction
II.C. Strand fitting
II.D. Effect of seed localization uncertainty on fit
II.E. Spline sensitivity analysis
II.F. Phantom evaluation
II.G. Dose calculations using the 2D formalism
II.H.1. 2D anisotropy on day-0 dosimetry
III.A. Phantom validation
III.B. Sensitivity simulation
III.C. Strand orientation
III.D. Dosimetric impact of computing seed orientation
Data & Media loading...
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...