Time course of prostatic edema post permanent seed implant determined by magnetic resonance imaging

Brachytherapy

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 354-361

  Sloboda, Ron S ^a,b   Usmani, Nawaid ^a,b   Pedersen, John ^a,b   Murtha, Albert ^a,b   Pervez, Nadeem ^a,b   Yee, Don ^a,b  

^a CROSS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Edema measurement; MRI; Prostate seed implant

Indexed keywords

IODINE 125;

ADULT; AGED; ANISOTROPY; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EDEMA; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ORGAN SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIATION DOSE; TIME;

AGED; BRACHYTHERAPY; EDEMA; HUMANS; IODINE RADIOISOTOPES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIOTHERAPY DOSAGE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77957352784     PISSN: 15384721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2009.09.008     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Prestidge B.R., Bice W.S., Kiefer E.J., et al. Timing of computed tomography-based postimplant assessment following permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 40:1111-1115.
2. Merrick G.S., Butler W.M., Dorsey A.T., et al. Influence of timing on the dosimetric analysis of transperineal ultrasound-guided, prostatic conformal brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig 1998, 6:182-190.
3. Waterman F.M., Yue N., Corn B.W., et al. Edema associated with I-125 or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy and its impact on post-implant dosimetry: An analysis based on serial CT acquisition. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 41:1069-1077.
4. Dogin N., Najeeb M., Glasgow G.P., et al. Effect of prostatic edema on CT-based postimplant dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 53:483-489.
5. Yamada Y., Potters L., Zaider M., et al. Impact of intraoperative edema during transperineal permanent prostate brachytherapy on computer-optimized and preimplant planning technique. Am J Clin Oncol 2003, 26:e130-e135.
6. Taussky D., Austen L., Toi A., et al. Sequential evaluation of prostate edema after permanent seed prostate brachytherapy using CT-MRI fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 62:974-980.
7. Tanaka O., Hayashi S., Matsuo M., et al. Effect of edema on postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy using CT/MRI fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 69:614-618.
8. Yue N., Dicker A.P., Nath R., et al. The impact of edema on planning 125I and 103Pd prostate implants. Med Phys 1999, 26:763-767.
9. Butler W.M., Merrick G.S., Dorsey A.T., et al. Isotope choice and the effect of edema on prostate brachytherapy dosimetry. Med Phys 2000, 27:1067-1075.
10. Chen Z., Deng J., Roberts K., et al. Potential impact of prostate edema on the dosimetry of permanent seed implants using the new 131Cs (model CS-1) seeds. Med Phys 2006, 33:968-975.
11. Villeneuve M., Leclerc G., Lessard E., et al. Relationship between isotope half-life and prostatic edema for optimal prostate dose coverage in permanent seed implants. Med Phys 2008, 35:1970-1977.
12. Smith R.P., Beriwal S., Komanduri K., et al. Planning based on postneedle volume with early dosimetric assessment is beneficial for Cesium-131 permanent prostate seed implantation. Brachytherapy 2008, 7:237-241.
13. Leclerc G., Lavallee M.C., Roy R., et al. Prostatic edema in 125I permanent prostate implants: Dynamical dosimetry taking volume changes into account. Med Phys 2006, 33:574-583.
14. McLaughlin P.W., Narayana V., Drake D.G., et al. Comparison of MRI pulse sequences in defining prostate volume after permanent implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 54:703-711.
15. Ohashi T., Yorozu A., Toya K., et al. Comparison of intraoperative ultrasound with postimplant computed tomography-Dosimetric values at day 1 and day 30 after prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2007, 6:246-253.
16. Pinkawa M., Gagel B., Asadpour B., et al. Seed displacements after permanent brachytherapy for prostate cancer in dependence on the prostate level. Strahlenther Onkol 2008, 184:520-525.
17. Polo A., Cattani F., Vavassori A., et al. MR and CT image fusion for postimplant analysis in permanent prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 60:1572-1579.
18. Potters L., Wang X.H., Yamada Y. A nomogram to compensate for intraoperative prostate edema during transperineal brachytherapy. Tech Urol 2000, 6:99-103.
19. Steggerda M.J., Moonen L.M.F., van der Poel H.G., et al. The influence of geometrical changes on the dose distribution after I-125 seed implantation of the prostate. Radiother Oncol 2007, 83:11-17.
20. Pinkawa M., Gagel B., Piroth M.D., et al. Changes of dose delivery distribution within the first month after permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2006, 182:525-530.
21. Saibishkumar E.P., Borg J., Yeung I., et al. Sequential comparison of seed loss and prostate dosimetry of stranded seeds with loose seeds in 125I permanent implant for low-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:61-68.
22. Reed D.R., Wallner K., Ford E., et al. Effect of post-implant edema on prostate brachytherapy treatment margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 63:1469-1473.
23. Sloboda R.S., Pedersen J.E., Hanson J., et al. Dosimetric consequences of increased seed strength for 125I prostate implants. Radiother Oncol 2003, 68:295-297.
24. Available at:, Accessed June 25, 2009. http://www.prostadoodle.com.
25. Tewari A., Indudhara R., Shinohara K., et al. Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound 1996, 24:169-174.
26. Sajadi K.P., Terris M.K., Hamilton R.J., et al. Body mass index, prostate weight and transrectal ultrasound prostate volume accuracy. J Urol 2007, 178:990-995.
27. Lee J.S., Chung B.H. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 2007, 78:323-327.
28. Rahmouni A., Yang A., Tempany C.M., et al. Accuracy of in-vivo assessment of prostatic volume by MRI and transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol 2007, 178:990-995.
29. Han B.H., Wallner K., Merrick G., et al. The effect of interobserver differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters. Med Phys 2003, 30:1096-1102.
30. Crook J., Milosevic M., Catton P., et al. Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2002, 1:66-73.
31. Lee W.R., Roach M., Michalski J., et al. Interobserver variability leads to significant differences in quantifiers of prostate implant adequacy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 54:457-461.
32. Dubois D.F., Prestidge B.R., Hotchkiss L.A., et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiology 1998, 207:785-789.
33. Usmani N., Sloboda R., Kamal W., et al. Can the images obtained with a high field strength MRI magnet (3.0 T) minimize the contouring variability of prostate cancer patients?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75(Suppl 1):S343. [abstract].
34. Usmani N., Sloboda R., Kamal W., et al. Can the images obtained with MRI minimize the contouring variability in the post-operative imaging of patients treated with prostate brachytherapy?. Radiother Oncol 2009, 92(Suppl 2):S1. [abstract].
35. Debois M., Oyen R., Maes F., et al. The contribution of magnetic resonance imaging to the three-dimensional treatment planning of localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 44:857-865.
36. Chen Z., Yue N., Wang X., et al. Dosimetric effects of edema in permanent prostate seed implants: A rigorous solution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 47:1405-1419.