Point: The relationship between postimplant dose metrics and biochemical no evidence of disease following low dose rate prostate brachytherapy: Is there an elephant in the room?

Brachytherapy

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 289-292

  Morris, W James ^a   Halperin, Ross ^a   Spadinger, Ingrid ^a  

^a BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IODINE 125;

ARTICLE; BIOCHEMISTRY; BRACHYTHERAPY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSIMETRY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIATION DOSE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

BRACHYTHERAPY; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, RADIATION; HUMANS; IODINE RADIOISOTOPES; MALE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY DOSAGE;

EID: 77957359960     PISSN: 15384721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2010.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Al-Qaisieh B., Ash D., Bottomley D.M., et al. Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2002, 62:267-273.
5. Zelefsky M.J., Kuban D.H., Levy L.B., et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcomes for stages T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:327-333.
6. Morris W.J., Keyes M., Palma D., et al. Evaluation of dosimetric parameters and disease response after 125I transperineal brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:1432-1438.
7. Kao J., Stone N.N., Lavaf A., et al. 125I monotherapy using D90 implant doses of 180 Gy or greater. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 70:96-101.
8. Choi S., Wallner K.E., Merrick G.S. Treatment margins predict biochemical outcomes after prostate brachytherapy. Cancer J 2004, 10:175-180.
9. Sidhu S., Morris W.J., Spadinger I., et al. Prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetry: A comparison of prostate quadrants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52:544-552.
10. Bice W.S., Prestidge B.R., Sarosdy M.F. Sector analysis of prostate implants. Med Phys 2001, 28:2561-2567.
11. Stock R.G., Stone N.N., Cesaretti J.A., et al. Biologically effective dose values for prostate brachytherapy: effects on PSA failure and post-treatment biopsy results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64:527-533.
12. Stone N.N., Potters L., Davis B.J., et al. Multicenter analysis of effect of high biologic effective dose on biochemical failure and survival outcomes in patients with Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:341-346.
13. Ho A.Y., Burri R.J., Cesaretti J.A., et al. Radiation dose predicts for biochemical control in intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with low dose-rate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:16-22.
14. Butler W.M., Stewart R.R., Merrick G.S. A detailed radiobiological and dosimetric analysis of biochemical outcomes in a case-control study of permanent prostate brachytherapy patients. Med Phys 2009, 36:776-787.
15. Lindsay P.E., Moiseenko V.V., Van Dyk J., et al. The influence of brachytherapy dose heterogeneity on estimates of α/β for prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol 2003, 48:507-522.
16. Ling C.C., Roy J., Sahoo N., et al. Quantifying the effect of dose inhomogeneity in brachytherapy: Application to permanent prostatic implant with 125I seeds. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994, 28:971-978.
17. Ling C.C., Li W.X., Anderson L.L. The relative biological effectiveness of I-125 and Pd-103. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995, 32:373-378.
18. Wuu C.S., Zaider M. A calculation of the relative biological effectiveness of 125I and 103Pd brachytherapy sources using the concept of proximity function. Med Phys 1998, 25:2186-2189.