SU‐E‐T‐458

Radiobiological Comparison of Single and Dual‐Isotope Prostate Seed Implants

C. Knaup, P. Mavroidis, C. Esquivel, Sotirios Stathakis, Gregory P Swanson, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Several isotopes are available for low dose‐rate brachytherapy of the prostate. Currently, most implants use a single isotope. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants may yield an advantageous combination of characteristics such as half‐life and relative biological effectiveness. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants complicates treatment planning and quality assurance. Do the benefits of dual‐isotope implants outweigh the added difficulty? The goal of this work was to use a linear‐quadratic model to compare single and dual‐isotope implants. Methods: Ten patients were evaluated in this study. For each patient, six treatment plans were created with single or dual‐isotope combinations of 1251, 103Pd and 131Cs. For each plan the prostate, urethra, rectum and bladder were contoured by a physician. The biologically effective dose was used to determine the tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probabilities for each plan. Each plan was evaluated using favorable, intermediate and unfavorable radiobiological parameters. The results of the radiobiological analysis were used to compare the single and dual‐isotope treatment plans. Results: Iodine‐125 only implants were seen to be most affected by changes in tumor aggressiveness. Significant differences in organ response probabilities were seen at common dose levels. It was recognized that these differences were likely a result of suboptimal initial seed strengths. After adjusting the initial seed strength to maximize complication‐free tumor control the differences between isotope combinations were minimal. This result was true even for unfavorable tumors. Conclusions: The objective of this work was to perform a radiobiologically based comparison of single and dual‐isotope prostate seed implant plans. For all isotope combinations, the plans were improved by varying the initial seed strength. For the minimally‐optimized treatment plans, no substantial differences in predicted treatment outcomes were seen among the different isotope combinations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3810
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Isotopes
Prostate
Seeds
Neoplasms
Relative Biological Effectiveness
Brachytherapy
Urethra
Therapeutics
Rectum
Half-Life
Urinary Bladder
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐458 : Radiobiological Comparison of Single and Dual‐Isotope Prostate Seed Implants. / Knaup, C.; Mavroidis, P.; Esquivel, C.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Swanson, Gregory P; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2012, p. 3810.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Knaup, C. ; Mavroidis, P. ; Esquivel, C. ; Stathakis, Sotirios ; Swanson, Gregory P ; Papanikolaou, Nikos. / SU‐E‐T‐458 : Radiobiological Comparison of Single and Dual‐Isotope Prostate Seed Implants. In: Medical Physics. 2012 ; Vol. 39, No. 6. pp. 3810.
@article{f229a453530846a993e1ce7cfe614a25,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐458: Radiobiological Comparison of Single and Dual‐Isotope Prostate Seed Implants",
abstract = "Purpose: Several isotopes are available for low dose‐rate brachytherapy of the prostate. Currently, most implants use a single isotope. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants may yield an advantageous combination of characteristics such as half‐life and relative biological effectiveness. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants complicates treatment planning and quality assurance. Do the benefits of dual‐isotope implants outweigh the added difficulty? The goal of this work was to use a linear‐quadratic model to compare single and dual‐isotope implants. Methods: Ten patients were evaluated in this study. For each patient, six treatment plans were created with single or dual‐isotope combinations of 1251, 103Pd and 131Cs. For each plan the prostate, urethra, rectum and bladder were contoured by a physician. The biologically effective dose was used to determine the tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probabilities for each plan. Each plan was evaluated using favorable, intermediate and unfavorable radiobiological parameters. The results of the radiobiological analysis were used to compare the single and dual‐isotope treatment plans. Results: Iodine‐125 only implants were seen to be most affected by changes in tumor aggressiveness. Significant differences in organ response probabilities were seen at common dose levels. It was recognized that these differences were likely a result of suboptimal initial seed strengths. After adjusting the initial seed strength to maximize complication‐free tumor control the differences between isotope combinations were minimal. This result was true even for unfavorable tumors. Conclusions: The objective of this work was to perform a radiobiologically based comparison of single and dual‐isotope prostate seed implant plans. For all isotope combinations, the plans were improved by varying the initial seed strength. For the minimally‐optimized treatment plans, no substantial differences in predicted treatment outcomes were seen among the different isotope combinations.",
author = "C. Knaup and P. Mavroidis and C. Esquivel and Sotirios Stathakis and Swanson, {Gregory P} and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1118/1.4735547",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "3810",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐458

T2 - Radiobiological Comparison of Single and Dual‐Isotope Prostate Seed Implants

AU - Knaup, C.

AU - Mavroidis, P.

AU - Esquivel, C.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Swanson, Gregory P

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose: Several isotopes are available for low dose‐rate brachytherapy of the prostate. Currently, most implants use a single isotope. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants may yield an advantageous combination of characteristics such as half‐life and relative biological effectiveness. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants complicates treatment planning and quality assurance. Do the benefits of dual‐isotope implants outweigh the added difficulty? The goal of this work was to use a linear‐quadratic model to compare single and dual‐isotope implants. Methods: Ten patients were evaluated in this study. For each patient, six treatment plans were created with single or dual‐isotope combinations of 1251, 103Pd and 131Cs. For each plan the prostate, urethra, rectum and bladder were contoured by a physician. The biologically effective dose was used to determine the tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probabilities for each plan. Each plan was evaluated using favorable, intermediate and unfavorable radiobiological parameters. The results of the radiobiological analysis were used to compare the single and dual‐isotope treatment plans. Results: Iodine‐125 only implants were seen to be most affected by changes in tumor aggressiveness. Significant differences in organ response probabilities were seen at common dose levels. It was recognized that these differences were likely a result of suboptimal initial seed strengths. After adjusting the initial seed strength to maximize complication‐free tumor control the differences between isotope combinations were minimal. This result was true even for unfavorable tumors. Conclusions: The objective of this work was to perform a radiobiologically based comparison of single and dual‐isotope prostate seed implant plans. For all isotope combinations, the plans were improved by varying the initial seed strength. For the minimally‐optimized treatment plans, no substantial differences in predicted treatment outcomes were seen among the different isotope combinations.

AB - Purpose: Several isotopes are available for low dose‐rate brachytherapy of the prostate. Currently, most implants use a single isotope. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants may yield an advantageous combination of characteristics such as half‐life and relative biological effectiveness. However, the use of dual‐isotope implants complicates treatment planning and quality assurance. Do the benefits of dual‐isotope implants outweigh the added difficulty? The goal of this work was to use a linear‐quadratic model to compare single and dual‐isotope implants. Methods: Ten patients were evaluated in this study. For each patient, six treatment plans were created with single or dual‐isotope combinations of 1251, 103Pd and 131Cs. For each plan the prostate, urethra, rectum and bladder were contoured by a physician. The biologically effective dose was used to determine the tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probabilities for each plan. Each plan was evaluated using favorable, intermediate and unfavorable radiobiological parameters. The results of the radiobiological analysis were used to compare the single and dual‐isotope treatment plans. Results: Iodine‐125 only implants were seen to be most affected by changes in tumor aggressiveness. Significant differences in organ response probabilities were seen at common dose levels. It was recognized that these differences were likely a result of suboptimal initial seed strengths. After adjusting the initial seed strength to maximize complication‐free tumor control the differences between isotope combinations were minimal. This result was true even for unfavorable tumors. Conclusions: The objective of this work was to perform a radiobiologically based comparison of single and dual‐isotope prostate seed implant plans. For all isotope combinations, the plans were improved by varying the initial seed strength. For the minimally‐optimized treatment plans, no substantial differences in predicted treatment outcomes were seen among the different isotope combinations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024814333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024814333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4735547

DO - 10.1118/1.4735547

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 3810

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -