Impact of target volume coverage with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 98-05 guidelines for transrectal ultrasound guided permanent Iodine-125 prostate implants

• Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology 2003-02, Vol.66 (2), p.173-179
• Main Authors: Horwitz, Eric M., Mitra, Raj K., Uzzo, Robert G., Das, Indra J., Pinover, Wayne H., Hanlon, Alexandra L., McNeeley, Shawn W., Hanks, Gerald E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Brachytherapy; Brachytherapy - methods; Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; Dosimetry; Humans; Iodine Radioisotopes - therapeutic use; Iodine-125; Male; Middle Aged; Permanent prostate implant; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatic neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; Radiotherapy Dosage; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
• ISSN: 0167-8140; 1879-0887
• DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00387-0

Purpose: Despite the wide use of permanent prostate implants for the treatment of early stage prostate cancer, there is no consensus for optimal pre-implant planning guidelines that results in maximal post-implant target coverage. The purpose of this study was to compare post-implant target volume coverage and dosimetry between patients treated before and after Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 98-05 guidelines were adopted using several dosimetric endpoints. Materials and methods: Ten consecutively treated patients before the adoption of the RTOG 98-05 planning guidelines were compared with ten consecutively treated patients after implementation of the guidelines. Pre-implant planning for patients treated pre-RTOG was based on the clinical target volume (CTV) defined by the pre-implant TRUS definition of the prostate. The CTV was expanded in each dimension according to RTOG 98-05 and defined as the planning target volume. The evaluation target volume was defined as the post-implant computed tomography definition of the prostate based on RTOG 98-05 protocol recommendations. Implant quality indicators included V 100, V 90, V 100, and Coverage Index (CI). Results: The pre-RTOG median V 100, V 90, D 90, and CI values were 82.8, 88.9%, 126.5 Gy, and 17.1, respectively. The median post-RTOG V 100, V 90, D 90, and CI values were 96.0, 97.8%, 169.2 Gy, and 4.0, respectively. These differences were all statistically significant. Conclusions: Implementation of the RTOG 98-05 implant planning guidelines has increased coverage of the prostate by the prescription isodose lines compared with our previous technique, as indicated by post-implant dosimetry indices such as V 100, V 90, D 90. The CI was also improved significantly with the protocol guidelines. Our data confirms the validity of the RTOG 98-05 implant guidelines for pre-implant planning as it relates to enlargement of the CTV to ensure adequate margin between the CTV and the prescription isodose lines.