Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: The dosimetric merit of a permanent prostate implant relies on two factors: the quality of the plan itself, and the fidelity of its implementation. The former factor depends on source type and on source strength, while the latter is a combination of skill and experience. The purpose of this study is to offer criteria by which to select a source type ((125)I or (103)Pd) and activity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Given a prescription dose and potential seed positions along needles, treatment plans were designed for a number of seed types and activities, specifically for (125)I with activities ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 mCi, and for (103)Pd with activities in the range of 0.8 to 1.6 mCi. To avoid human planner bias, an automated computerized planning system based on integer programming was used to obtain optimal seed configurations for each seed type and activity. To simulate the effect of seed-placement inaccuracies, random seed-displacement 'errors' were generated for all plans. The displacement errors were assumed to be uniformly distributed within a cube with side equal to 2sigma. The resulting treatment plans were assessed using two volumetric and two dosimetric indices. RESULTS: For (125)I implants a coverage index (CI) of 98.5% or higher can be achieved for all activities (CI is the fraction of the target volume receiving the prescribed or larger dose). The external volume index (EI) (i.e., the amount of healthy tissue, as percentage of the target volume, receiving the prescribed or larger dose) increases from 13.9% to 20% as the activity increases from 0.3 to 0.7 mCi. For implants using (103)Pd, the external volume index increases from 10. 2% to 13.9% whenever CI exceeds 98.5%. Volumetric and dosimetric indices (coverage index, external volume index, D90, and D80) are all sensitive to seed displacement, although the activity dependence of these indices is more pronounced for (125)I than for (103)Pd implants. CONCLUSIONS: For both isotopes, the lower activities studied systematically result in lower EIs. If seeds can be placed within approximately 0.5 cm of their intended position (103)Pd should be preferred because its EI is lower than that of (125)I. For all activities the coverage indices and D90 are within the required range. If seed placement uncertainties are larger than 0.5 cm, (125)I provides slightly better target coverage; however, in terms of external volume (healthy tissue) covered, (103)Pd is superior to (125)I

Because of the uncertainties regarding the efficacy of postoperative radiation therapy for early prostate cancer, treatment strategies following radical prostatectomy include: (1) observation alone in high-risk patients, (2) adjuvant radiation therapy (PSA undetectable) in high-risk patients, or (3) salvage radiation therapy for biochemical and clinical recurrence. Fifty-two patients treated with postoperative radiation therapy in either an adjuvant setting (13) or for salvage (39) were retrospectively reviewed. The actuarial biochemical disease-free survival (bNED) rates following radiation therapy were calculated using the life-table method. Univariate and multi variate analyses were used to define the clinical factors that predict biochemical failure following postoperative radiation therapy. In addition, the bNED survival rate for 36 high-risk surgery patients who were simply observed following prostatectomy was determined. The 3-year bNED survival rate for the adjuvant radiation group was 85% compared with 27% for salvage radiation and 43% for the observation group. These results are statistically significant. Factors that predict biochemical failure following postoperative radiation therapy include preoperative PSA level, pre-radiation therapy PSA level, and seminal vesicle involvement. At our institutions, adjuvant radiation therapy was a superior strategy compared with either observation alone or salvage radiation therapy for high-risk postoperative prostate cancer patients. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 29-36 (2000)

OBJECTIVES: Although a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis is often recommended as part of the staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer, most scans are negative for metastases. We hypothesized that biopsy Gleason score, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and clinical stage could predict for a positive CT scan and that a low-risk group of patients could be identified in whom CT might be omitted. METHODS: All patients who had both pathologic review of their prostate cancer biopsies and abdominopelvic CT scans at our institution between January 1990 and May 1996 were studied. Gleason score, PSA, and stage were evaluated by univariate (chi-square) and multivariate (logistic regression) analyses for their ability to predict for a positive CT. RESULTS: Of 588 patients, 41 (7%) had a positive CT scan. Multivariate analysis showed Gleason score, PSA, and clinical stage to be significant independent predictors of a positive CT scan, all P <0.001. The odds ratios for a positive CT scan were 6.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58 to 24) for Gleason score 8 to 10 versus 2 to 6; 2.25 (CI = 1.24 to 4) for PSA greater than 50 versus 0 to 15 ng/mL; 2.08 (CI = 1.70 to 3.21 ) for Stage T2c-T4 versus T2b or lower. All 244 patients with Gleason score 2 to 7, PSA 1 5 ng/mL or less, and clinical Stage T2b or less had negative CT scans. Of the other 174 patients with a Gleason score of 2 to 7, 8 (5%) had a positive CT scan. Of the 1 26 patients with a Gleason score of 8 to 10, 28 (22%) had a positive CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: Gleason score, PSA, and clinical stage were independent predictors for a positive CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. In this cost-conscious era, we can decrease expenditure by obviating the need for a CT scan in low-risk patients (clinical Stage T2b or less, Gleason score 2 to 7, and PSA 15 ng/mL or less). A CT scan should be considered in all other patients

OBJECTIVES: This pilot study was designed to prospectively assess whether the addition of laparoscopy at the time of interstitial brachytherapy is safe, provides verification and/or guidance of needle placement, and results in a reduction of treatment-related morbidity. METHODS: Between 7/93 and 2/97 15 consecutive eligible patients were entered into this study. All patients received external pelvic radiation to a dose range between 45 and 61.20 Gy using 1.8-Gy fractions. In each patient the minimum prescribed dose for the brachytherapy portion was 20 Gy. Minimum cumulative doses to sites of gross disease ranged from 71.8 to 115.3 Gy. A Syed-Neblett afterloading perineal template was used in all the procedures. Laparoscopy using established guidelines was performed during placement of interstitial needles. During template placement, verification of interstitial needles on laparoscopy and any subsequent changes or needle rearrangement were noted. RESULTS: No acute radiation toxicity greater than Grade 2 was noted during the external beam portion of treatment, and no perioperative complications were encountered. These needles were withdrawn under laparoscopic guidance to just below the peritoneal reflection, avoiding proximity to the bowel and improving tumor coverage. Median follow-up time was 26 months. No late radiation morbidity greater than Grade 2 nor any laparoscopic-related complications were noted. To date, one patient has died of disease; six are alive with disease; and eight are alive free of disease with a mean disease-free survival of 17.3 months. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy at the time of interstitial brachytherapy appears to be safe. No radiation toxicity greater than Grade 2 has developed. No perioperative complications were seen with the addition of laparoscopy. The addition of laparoscopy to the placement of transperineal interstitial implants impacted needle arrangement and/or loading of sources in 50% of patients