Intraoperative planning and evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy: report of the American Brachytherapy Society.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: The preplanned technique used for permanent prostate brachytherapy has limitations that may be overcome by intraoperative planning. The goal of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) project was to assess the current intraoperative planning process and explore the potential for improvement in intraoperative treatment planning (ITP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Members of the ABS with expertise in ITP performed a literature review, reviewed their clinical experience with ITP, and explored the potential for improving the technique. RESULTS: The ABS proposes the following terminology in regard to prostate planning process: *Preplanning--Creation of a plan a few days or weeks before the implant procedure. *Intraoperative planning--Treatment planning in the operating room (OR): the patient and transrectal ultrasound probe are not moved between the volume study and the seed insertion procedure. * Intraoperative preplanning--Creation of a plan in the OR just before the implant procedure, with immediate execution of the plan. *Interactive planning--Stepwise refinement of the treatment plan using computerized dose calculations derived from image-based needle position feedback. *Dynamic dose calculation--Constant updating of dose distribution calculations using continuous deposited seed position feedback. Both intraoperative preplanning and interactive planning are currently feasible and commercially available and may help to overcome many of the limitations of the preplanning technique. Dosimetric feedback based on imaged needle positions can be used to modify the ITP. However, the dynamic changes in prostate size and shape and in seed position that occur during the implant are not yet quantifiable with current technology, and ITP does not obviate the need for postimplant dosimetric analysis. The major current limitation of ITP is the inability to localize the seeds in relation to the prostate. Dynamic dose calculation can become a reality once these issues are solved. Future advances can be expected in methods of enhancing seed identification, in imaging techniques, and in the development of better source delivery systems. Additionally, ITP should be correlated with outcome studies, using dosimetric, toxicity, and efficacy endpoints. CONCLUSION: ITP addresses many of the limitations of current permanent prostate brachytherapy and has some advantages over the preplanned technique. Further technologic advancement will be needed to achieve dynamic real-time calculation of dose distribution from implanted sources, with constant updating to allow modification of subsequent seed placement and consistent, ideal dose distribution within the target volume.
