Measurement uncertainty analysis of low-dose-rate prostate seed brachytherapy: post-implant dosimetry
Tóm tắt
The minimal dose covering 90 % of the prostate volume—D
90—is arguably the most important dosimetric parameter in low-dose-rate prostate seed brachytherapy. In this study an analysis of the measurement uncertainties in D
90 from low-dose-rate prostate seed brachytherapy was conducted for two common treatment procedures with two different post-implant dosimetry methods. The analysis was undertaken in order to determine the magnitude of D
90 uncertainty, how the magnitude of the uncertainty varied when D
90 was calculated using different dosimetry methods, and which factors were the major contributors to the uncertainty. The analysis considered the prostate as being homogeneous and tissue equivalent and made use of published data, as well as original data collected specifically for this analysis, and was performed according to the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). It was found that when prostate imaging and seed implantation were conducted in two separate sessions using only CT images for post-implant analysis, the expanded uncertainty in D
90 values were about 25 % at the 95 % confidence interval. When prostate imaging and seed implantation were conducted during a single session using CT and ultrasound images for post-implant analysis, the expanded uncertainty in D
90 values were about 33 %. Methods for reducing these uncertainty levels are discussed. It was found that variations in contouring the target tissue made the largest contribution to D
90 uncertainty, while the uncertainty in seed source strength made only a small contribution. It is important that clinicians appreciate the overall magnitude of D
90 uncertainty and understand the factors that affect it so that clinical decisions are soundly based, and resources are appropriately allocated.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Buyyounouski MK, Davis BJ, Prestidge BR, Shanahan TG, Stock RG, Grimm PD, Demanes DJ, Zaider M, Horwitz EM (2012) A survey of current clinical practice in permanent and temporary prostate brachytherapy: 2010 update. Brachytherapy 11:299–305
Zelefsky MJ, Cohen GN, Bosch WR, Morikawa L, Khalid N, Crozier CL, Lee WR, Zietman A, Owen J, Wilson JF, Devlin PM (2013) Results from the quality research in radiation oncology (QRRO) survey: evaluation of dosimetric outcomes for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 12:19–24
IOS (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM), 1st edn. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
JCGM (2008) Evaluation of measurement data—guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology 100, Sèvres. http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf
Kirisits C, Rivard MJ, Baltas D, Ballester F, de Brabandere M, van der Laarse R, Niatsetski Y, Papagiannis P, Hellebust TP, Perez-Calatayud J, Tanderup K, Venselaar JLM, Siebert F-A (2014) Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM. Radiother Oncol 110:199–212
Davis BJ, Horwitz EM, Lee WR, Crook JM, Stock RG, Merrick GS, Butler WM, Grimm PD, Stone N, Potters L, Zietman AZ, Zelefsky MJ (2012) American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 11:6–19
Polo A, Salembier C, Venselaar J, Hoskin P (2010) Review of intraoperative imaging and planning techniques in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 94:12–23
Nath R, Bice WS, Butler WM, Chen Z, Meigooni AS, Narayana V, Rivard MJ, Yu Y (2009) AAPM recommendations on dose prescription and reporting methods for permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: report of task group 137. Med Phys 36:5310–5322. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/
Rivard MJ, Butler WM, Devlin PM, Hayes JK Jr, Hearn RA, Lief EP, Meigooni AS, Merrick GS, Williamson JF (2007) American Brachytherapy Society recommends no change for prostate permanent implant dose prescriptions using iodine-125 or palladium-103. Brachytherapy 6:34–37
Gregory K (2009) Survey of prostate seed brachytherapy centres. Does your centre evaluate post-implant dosimetry using prostate contours from…,”Medphyslistserver. Results posted on the Australasian Radiation Protection Society website. http://www.arps.org.au/?q=content/survey-prostate-seed-brachytherapy-centres-does-your-centre-evaluate-post-implant-dosimetry
Bentley RE (2003) Uncertainty in measurement: the ISO guide, 6th edn. National Measurement Laboratory, Sydney
Gregory K, Bibbo G, Pattison JE (2005) A standard approach to measurement uncertainties for scientists and engineers in medicine. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 28:131–139
De Werd LA, Ibbott GS, Meigooni AS, Mitch MG, Rivard MJ, Stump KE, Venselaar JLM, Thomadsen BR (2011) A dosimetric uncertainty analysis for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources: report of AAPM task group no. 138 and GEC-ESTRO. Med Phys 38:782–801
Gregory KJ, Pattison JE, Bibbo G (2006) Uncertainties of exposure-related quantities in mammographic X-ray unit quality control. Med Phys 33:687–698
Gregory KJ, Bibbo G, Pattison JE (2008) On the uncertainties in effective dose estimates from adult CT head scans. Med Phys 35:3501–3510
Gregory KJ, Bibbo G, Pattison JE (2009) Uncertainties in effective dose estimates of adult CT scans: the effect of head size. Med Phys 36:4121–4125
Butler WM, Bice WS, De Werd LA, Hevezi JM, Huq MS, Ibbott GS, Palta JR, Rivard MJ, Seuntjens JP, Thomadsen BJ (2008) Third-party brachytherapy source calibrations and physicist responsibilities: report of the AAPM low energy brachytherapy source calibration working group. Med Phys 35:3860–3865
Nath R, Anderson L, Luxton G, Weaver KA, Williamson JF, Meigooni AS (1995) Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group no. 43. Med Phys 22:209–234
de Brabandere M, Hoskin P, Haustermans K, Van den Heuvel F, Siebert F-A (2012) Prostate post-implant dosimetry: Interobserver variability in seed location, contouring and fusion. Radiother Oncol 104:192–198
Lindsay PE, Van Dyk J, Battista JJ (2003) A systematic study of imaging uncertainties and their impact on 125I prostate brachytherapy dose evaluation. Med Phys 30:1897–1908
De Brabandere M, Kirisits C, Peeters R, Haustermans K, Van den Heuvel F (2006) Accuracy of seed reconstruction in prostate postplanning studied with a CT- and MRI-compatible phantom. Radiother Oncol 79:190–197
Su Y, Davis BJ, Furutani KM, Herman MG (2007) Dosimetry accuracy as a function of seed localization uncertainty in permanent prostate brachytherapy: increased seed number correlates with less variability in prostate dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 52:3105–3119
Landry G, Reniers B, Murrer L, Lutgens L, Bloemen-Van Gurp L, Pignol J-P, Keller B, Beaulieu L, Verhaegen F (2010) Sensitivity of low energy brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations to uncertainties in human tissue composition. Med Phys 37:5188–5199
Mobit P, Badragan I (2004) Dose perturbation effects in prostate seed implant brachytherapy with I-125. Phys Med Biol 49:3171–3178
Yu Y, Anderson L, Li Z, Mellenberg DE, Nath R, Schell MC, Waterman FM, Wu A, Blasko JC (1999) Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: report of the American association of physicists in medicine task group no. 64. Med Phys 26:2054–2076
Carrier J-F, D’Amours M, Verhaegen F, Reniers B, Martin A-G, Vigneault E, Beaulieu L (2007) Postimplant dosimetry using a Monte Carlo dose calculation engine: a new clinical standard. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:1190–1198
Carrier J-F, Beaulieu L, Therriault-Proulx F, Roy R (2006) Impact of interseed attenuation and tissue composition for permanent prostate implants. Med Phys 33:595–604
Chibani O, Williamson JF, Todor D (2005) Dosimetric effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for 103Pd and 125I prostate implants. Med Phys 32:2557–2566
Marcu LG, Quach K (2006) The role of post-implant dosimetry in the quality assessment of prostate implants. The RAH experience. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 29:310–314
Fuller DB, Jin H, Koziol JA, Feng AC (2005) CT-ultrasound fusion prostate brachytherapy: a dynamic dosimetry feedback and improvement method. A report of 54 consecutive cases. Brachytherapy 4:207–216
Xue J, Waterman F, Handler J, Gressen E (2006) The effect of interobserver variability on transrectal ultrasonography-based postimplant dosimetry. Brachytherapy 5:174–182
Han BH, Wallner K, Merrick G, Badiozamani K, Butler W (2003) The effect of interobserver differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters. Med Phys 30:1096–1102
Marcu LG, Gowda R (2013) Comparison of 3 different postimplant dosimetry methods following permanent 125I prostate seed brachytherapy. Med Dosim 38:309–314
Solhjem MC, Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, Wilson TM, Mynderse LA, Herman MG, King BF, Geyer SM (2004) Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound and computed tomography before and after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:767–776
Saibishkumar EP, Borg J, Yeung I, Cummins-Holder C, Landon A, Crook J (2009) 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 73:61–68
Sloboda RS, Usmani N, Pedersen J, Murtha A, Pervez N, Yee D (2010) Time course of prostatic oedema post permanent seed implant determined by magnetic resonance imaging. Brachytherapy 9:354–361
McLaughlin P, Narayana V, Pan C, Berri S, Troyer S, Herman J, Evans V, Robertson P (2006) Comparison of day 0 and day 14 dosimetry for permanent prostate implants using stranded seeds. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:144–150
Tanaka O, Hayashi S, Matsuo M, Nakaon M, Uno H, Ohtakara K, Miyoshi T, Deguchi T (2007) Effect of edema on postimplant dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy using CT/MRI fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:614–618
Reed DR, Wallner K, Ford E, Mueller A, Merrick G, Maki J, Sutlief S, Butler W (2005) Effect of post-implant edemea on prostate brachytherapy treatment margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:1469–1473
Yamada Y, Potters L, Zaider M, Cohen G, Venkatraman E, Zelefsky M (2003) Impact of intraoperative oedema during transperineal permanent prostate brachytherapy on computer-optimized and preimplant planning techniques. Am J Clin Oncol 26:e130–e135
Kirisits C, Siebert F-A, Baltas D, de Brabandere M, Hellebust TP, Berger D, Venselaar J (2007) Accuracy of volume and DVH parameters determined with different brachytherapy treatment planning systems. Radiother Oncol 84:290–297
Polo A (2010) Image fusion techniques in permanent seed implantation. J Contemp Brachyther 2:98–106
Ash B, Al-Qaisieh B, Bottomley D, Carey B, Joseph J (2006) The correlation between D 90 and outcome for I-125 seed implant monotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 79:185–189
Morris WJ, Spadinger I, Keyes M, Hamm J, McKenzie M, Pickles T (2014) Whole prostate D 90 and V100: a dose-response analysis of 2000 consecutive 125I monotherapy patients. Brachytherapy 13:32–41
Morris WJ, Halperin R, Spadinger I (2010) Paint: 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 9:289–292
Morris WJ, Keyes M, Palma D, McKenzie M, Spadinger I, Agranovich A, Pickles T, Liu M, Kwan W, Wu J, Lapointe V, Berthelet E, Pai H, Harrison R, Kwa W, Bucci J, Racz V, Woods R (2009) Evaluation of dosimetric parameters and disease response after 125 iodine transperineal brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:1432–1438
Morris WJ, Keyes M, Palma D, Spadinger I, McKenzie MR, Agranovich A, Pickles T, Liu M, Kwan W, Wu J, Berthelet E, Pai H (2009) Population-based study of biochemical and survival outcomes after permanent 125I brachytherapy far low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Urology 73:860–867
Stock RG (2010) Counterpoint: there is a dose-relationship in the low-dose rate brachytherapy management of prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 9:293–296
Stock RG, Stone N, Tabert A, Jannuzzi C, de Wyngaert JK (1998) A dose-response study for 125I prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:101–108