High-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy based on registered transrectal ultrasound and in-room cone-beam CT images

Brachytherapy

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 128-136

  Even, Aniek J G ^a,b   Nuver, Tonnis T ^a   Westendorp, Hendrik ^a   Hoekstra, Carel J ^a   Slump, Cornelis H ^b   Minken, André W ^a  

^a Radiotherapeutic Institute Stedendriehoek en Omstreken   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cone beam CT; HDR brachytherapy; Prostate; Registration; Transrectal ultrasound

Indexed keywords

CONE-BEAM CT; HDR BRACHYTHERAPY; PROSTATE; REGISTRATION; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND;

BRACHYTHERAPY; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; MALE; NEEDLES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOMETRY; RECTUM; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; URETHRA;

EID: 84894243894     PISSN: 15384721     EISSN: 18731449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2013.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Koukourakis G., Kelekis N., Armonis V., et al. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Adv Urol 2009, 327945.
2. Mahmoudieh A., Tremblay C., Beaulieu L., et al. Anatomy-based inverse planning dose optimization in HDR prostate implant: Atoxicity study. Radiother Oncol 2005, 75:318-324.
3. Brenner D.J., Martinez A.A., Edmundson G.K., et al. Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low α/β ratio), similar to late-responding normal tissue. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52:6-13.
4. Fowler J., Chappell R., Ritter M. Is α/β for prostate tumors really low?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 50:1021-1031.
5. Nath R., Bice W.S., Butler W.M., et al. AAPM recommendations on dose prescription and reporting methods for permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Report of Task Group 137. Med Phys 2009, 36:5310-5322.
6. Yamada Y., Rogers L., Demanes D.J., et al. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2012, 11:20-32.
7. Kovács G., Pötter R., Loch T., et al. GEC/ESTRO-EAU recommendations on temporary brachytherapy using stepping sources for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2005, 74:137-148.
8. Rasch C., Barillot I., Remeijer P., et al. Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: A multi-observer study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 43:57-66.
9. Usmani N., Sloboda R., Kamal W., et al. Can images obtained with high field strength magnetic resonance imaging reduce contouring variability of the prostate?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 80:728-734.
10. Smith W.L., Lewis C., Bauman G., et al. Prostate volume contouring: A3D analysis of segmentation using 3DTRUS, CT, and MR. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:1238-1247.
11. Holly R., Morton G.C., Sankreacha R., et al. Use of cone-beam imaging to correct for catheter displacement in high dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2011, 10:299-305.
12. Kolkman-Deurloo I.K., Roos M.A., Aluwini S. HDR monotherapy for prostate cancer: A simulation study to determine the effect of catheter displacement on target coverage and normal tissue irradiation. Radiother Oncol 2011, 98:192-197.
13. Liu D., Usmani N., Ghosh S., et al. Comparison of prostate volume, shape, and contouring variability determined from preimplant magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images. Brachytherapy 2012, 11:284-291.
14. Zheng D., Todor D.A. A novel method for accurate needle-tip identification in trans-rectal ultrasound-based high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2011, 10:466-473.
15. Schmid M., Crook J.M., Batchelar D., et al. A phantom study to assessaccuracy of needle identification in real-time planning of ultrasound-guided high-dose-rate prostate implants. Brachytherapy 2013, 12:56-64.
16. Lakosi F., Antal G., Vandulek C., et al. Open MR-guided high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy: Feasibility and initial experiences. Pathol Oncol Res 2011, 17:315-324.
17. Westendorp H., Hoekstra C.J., van't Riet A., et al. Intraoperative adaptive brachytherapy of iodine-125 prostate implants guided by C-arm cone-beam computed tomography-based dosimetry. Brachytherapy 2007, 6:231-237.
18. Baltas D., Kolotas C., Geramani K., et al. A conformal index (COIN) to evaluate implant quality and dose specification in brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 40:515-524.
19. Pouliot J., Kim Y., Lessard E., et al. Inverse planning for HDR prostate brachytherapy used to boost dominant intraprostatic lesions defined by magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 59:1196-1207.
20. Huckle A., Al-Qaisieh B., Bownes P. Methods of verifying the output of the treatment planning system used for high dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2012, 103:261-265.
21. Morton G.C., Loblaw D.A., Sankreacha R., et al. Single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Analysis of short- and medium-term toxicity and quality of life. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 77:811-817.
22. Foster W., Cunha A.M., Hsu I.C., et al. Dosimetric impact of interfraction catheter movement in high-dose rate prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 80:85-90.
23. Kim Y., Hsu I.C., Pouliot J. Measurement of craniocaudal catheter displacement between fractions in computed tomography-based high dose rate brachytherapy of prostate cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007, 8:2415-2427.
24. Simnor T., Li S., Lowe G., et al. Justification for inter-fraction correction of catheter movement in fractionated high dose-rate brachytherapy treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009, 93:253-258.
25. Whitaker M., Hruby G., Lovett A., et al. Prostate HDR brachytherapy catheter displacement between planning and treatment delivery. Radiother Oncol 2011, 101:490-494.
26. Pieters B.R., van der Grient J.N., Blank L.E., et al. Minimal displacement of novel self-anchoring catheters suitable for temporary prostate implants. Radiother Oncol 2006, 80:69-72.
27. Seppenwoolde Y., Kolkman-Deurloo I.K., Sipkema D., et al. HDR prostate monotherapy-Dosimetric effects of implant deformation due to posture change between TRUS- and CT-imaging. Radiother Oncol 2008, 86:114-119.