Investigating the dosimetric and tumor control consequences of prostate seed loss and migration

AAPM Task Group Report 267: A joint AAPM GEC-ESTRO report on biophysical models and tools for the planning and evaluation of brachytherapy

Brachytherapy utilizes a multitude of radioactive sources and treatment techniques that often exhibit widely different spatial and temporal dose delivery patterns. Biophysical models, capable of modeling the key interacting effects of dose delivery patterns with the underlying cellular processes of the irradiated tissues, can be a potentially useful tool for elucidating the radiobiological effects of complex brachytherapy dose delivery patterns and for comparing their relative clinical effectiveness. While the biophysical models have been used largely in research settings by experts, it has also been used increasingly by clinical medical physicists over the last two decades. A good understanding of the potentials and limitations of the biophysical models and their intended use is critically important in the widespread use of these models. To facilitate meaningful and consistent use of biophysical models in brachytherapy, Task Group 267 (TG-267) was formed jointly with the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) and The Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) to review the existing biophysical models, model parameters, and their use in selected brachytherapy modalities and to develop practice guidelines for clinical medical physicists regarding the selection, use, and interpretation of biophysical models. The report provides an overview of the clinical background and the rationale for the development of biophysical models in radiation oncology and, particularly, in brachytherapy; a summary of the results of literature review of the existing biophysical models that have been used in brachytherapy; a focused discussion of the applications of relevant biophysical models for five selected brachytherapy modalities; and the task group recommendations on the use, reporting, and implementation of biophysical models for brachytherapy treatment planning and evaluation. The report concludes with discussions on the challenges and opportunities in using biophysical models for brachytherapy and with an outlook for future developments.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Rationale, current applications, and clinical outcome

Background

High‐dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDR BRT) has been enjoying rapid acceptance as a treatment modality offered to selected prostate cancer patients devoid of risk group, employed either in monotherapy setting or combined with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and is currently one of the most active clinical research areas.

Recent findings

This review encompasses all the current evidence to support the use of HDR BRT in various clinical scenario and shines light to the HDR BRT rationale, as an ultimately conformal dose delivery method enabling safe dose escalation to the prostate.

Conclusion

Valid long‐term data, both in regard to the oncologic outcomes and toxicity profile, support the current clinical indication spectrum of HDR BRT. At the same time, this serves as solid, rigid ground for emerging therapeutic applications, allowing the technique to remain in the spotlight alongside stereotactic radiosurgery.

Radioactive seed migration following parotid gland interstitial brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence and associated factors of pulmonary seed migration after parotid brachytherapy using a novel migrated seed detection technique.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients diagnosed with parotid cancer who underwent permanent parotid brachytherapy from January 2006 to December 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. Head and neck CT scans and chest X-rays were evaluated during routine follow-up. Mimics software and Geomagic Studio software were used for seed reconstruction and migrated seed detection from the original implanted region, respectively. Postimplant dosimetry analysis was performed after seeds migration if the seeds were still in their emitting count. Adverse clinical sequelae from seed embolization to the lung were documented.

RESULTS

The radioactive seed implants were identified on chest X-rays in 6 patients. The incidence rate of seed migration in 321 parotid brachytherapy patients was 1.87% (6/321) and that of individual seed migration was 0.04% (6/15218 seeds). All migrated seeds were originally from the retromandibular region. No adverse dosimetric consequences were found in the target region. Pulmonary symptoms were not reported by any patient in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient set, migration of radioactive seeds with an initial radioactivity of 0.6-0.7 mCi to the chest following parotid brachytherapy was rare. Late migration of a single seed from the central target region did not affect the dosimetry significantly, and patients did not have severe short-term complications. This study proposed a novel technique to localize the anatomical origin of the migrated seeds during brachytherapy. Our evidence suggested that placement of seeds adjacent to blood vessels was associated with an increased likelihood of seed migration to the lungs.

Surface coating for prevention of metallic seed migration in tissues

PURPOSE

In radiotherapy, metallic implants often detach from their deposited sites and migrate to other locations. This undesirable migration could cause inadequate dose coverage for permanent brachytherapy and difficulties in image-guided radiation delivery for patients. To prevent migration of implanted seeds, the authors propose a potential strategy to use a biocompatible and tissue-adhesive material called polydopamine.

METHODS

In this study, nonradioactive dummy seeds that have the same geometry and composition as commercial I-125 seeds were coated in polydopamine. Using scanning electron microscopy and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, the surface of the polydopamine-coated and noncoated seeds was characterized. The detachment stress between the two types of seeds and the tissue was measured. The efficacy of polydopamine-coated seed was investigated through in vitro migration tests by tracing the seed location after tissue implantation and shaking for given times. The cytotoxicity of the polydopamine coating was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The results of the coating characterization have shown that polydopamine was successfully coated on the surface of the seeds. In the adhesion test, the polydopamine-coated seeds had 2.1-fold greater detachment stress than noncoated seeds. From the in vitro test, it was determined that the polydopamine-coated seed migrated shorter distances than the noncoated seed. This difference was increased with a greater length of time after implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors suggest that polydopamine coating is an effective technique to prevent migration of implanted seeds, especially for permanent prostate brachytherapy.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of loss and displacement of seeds in prostate low-dose-rate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To analyze the seed loss and displacement and their dosimetric impact in prostate low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy while utilizing the combination of loose and stranded seeds.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and seventeen prostate cancer patients have been treated with LDR brachytherapy. Loose seeds were implanted in the prostate center and stranded seeds in the periphery of the gland. Patients were imaged with transrectal ultrasound before implant and with computerized tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MR) one month after implant. The seed loss and displacement had been analyzed. Their impact on prostate dosimetry had been examined. The seed distribution beyond the prostate inferior boundary had been studied.

RESULTS

The mean number of seeds per patient that were lost to lung, pelvis/abdomen, urine, or unknown destinations was 0.21, 0.13, 0.03, and 0.29, respectively. Overall, 40.1% of patients had seed loss. Seed migration to lung and pelvis/abdomen occurred in 15.5% and 10.5% of the patients, respectively. Documented seed loss to urine was found in 3% of the patients while 20% of patients had seed loss to unknown destinations. Prostate length difference between pre-plan and post-implant images was within 6 mm in more than 98% of cases. The difference in number of seeds inferior to prostate between pre-plan and post-implant dosimetry was within 7 seeds for 93% of patients. At time of implant, 98% of seeds, inferior to prostate, were within 5 mm and 100% within 15 mm, and in one month post-implant 83% within 9 mm and 96.3% within 15 mm. Prostate post-implant V100, D90, and rectal wall RV100 for patients without seed loss were 94.6%, 113.9%, and 0.98 cm(3), respectively, as compared to 95.0%, 114.8%, and 0.95 cm(3) for the group with seed loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Seed loss and displacement have been observed to be frequent. No correlation between seed loss and displacement and post-plan dosimetry has been reported.