[Prostate brachytherapy: New techniques, new indications]

[Brachytherapy: When needs overtake care offer]

Brachytherapy has the unique characteristic of being able to deliver high doses to a very localized volume, and remains one of the radiotherapy techniques that has an unparalleled therapeutic index. However, its use has been declining in the past years. Globally, only 55 to 88 % of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer benefit from utero-vaginal brachytherapy, despite the fact that it is proven to enhance both progression-free and overall survival. A decline in the use of low dose rate brachytherapy has likewise been described in the treatment of low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers. Several factors could explain this. First, the radiation oncologists who have the proficiency to perform brachytherapy seems to be inadequate, as it is a technique that requires training and expertise for optimal applications. In many cancer care centers, the caseload is insufficient to provide this experience. Second, the increasing use of technically advanced external beam radiation therapy, such as intensity modulated radiation therapy, offers an easier substitute with more lucrative benefits, resulting in decreased utilization of brachytherapy. However, when brachytherapy is not delivered, a poorer survival rate is reported in locally advanced cervical cancer, and is suggested in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. The increasing level of evidence of treatment with brachytherapy necessitates an improvement in its accessibility by having more radiation oncologists as well as cancer centers equipped to perform the procedure.

Pre-implant magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound imaging in high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: comparison of prostate volumes, craniocaudal extents, and contours

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the prostate contours drawn by two radiation oncologists and one radiologist on magnetic resonance (MR) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images. TRUS intra- and inter-fraction variability as well as TRUS vs. MR inter-modality and inter-operator variability were studied.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty patients affected by localized prostate cancer and treated with interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy at the National Cancer Institute in Milan were included in this study. Twenty-five patients received an exclusive two-fraction (14 Gy/fraction) treatment, while the other 5 received a single 14 Gy fraction as a boost after external beam radiotherapy. The prostate was contoured on TRUS images acquired before (virtual US) and after (real US) needle implant by two radiation oncologists, whereas on MR prostate was independently contoured by the same radiation oncologists (MR1, MR2) and by a dedicated radiologist (MR3). Absolute differences of prostate volumes (│ΔV│) and craniocaudal extents (│Δdz│) were evaluated. The Dice's coefficient (DC) was calculated to quantify spatial overlap between MR contours.

RESULTS

Significant difference was found between Vvirtual and Vlive (p < 0.001) for the first treatment fractions and between VMR1 and VMR2 (p = 0.043). Significant difference between cranio-caudal extents was found between dzvirtual and dzlive (p < 0.033) for the first treatment fractions, between dzvirtual of the first treatment fractions and dzMR1 (p < 0.001) and between dzMR1 and dzMR3 (p < 0.01). Oedema might be responsible for some of the changes in US volumes. Average DC values resulting from the comparison MR1 vs. MR2, MR1 vs. MR3 and MR2 vs. MR3 were 0.95 ± 0.04 (range, 0.82-0.99), 0.87 ± 0.04 (range, 0.73-0.91) and 0.87 ± 0.04 (range, 0.72-0.91), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the importance of a multiprofessional approach to TRUS-guided HDR prostate brachytherapy. Specific training in MR and US prostate imaging is recommended for centers that are unfamiliar with HDR prostate brachytherapy.