Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

Treatment-planning

considerations

for prostate implants with the

new linear RadioCoil™ 103Pd

 

brachytherapy source

 

Ali S. Meigooni,a Shahid B. Awan, Venkata Rachabatthula, and Rafiq A. Koona
Department of Radiation Medicine, University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center,800 Rose Street, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0084 U.S.A.
alimeig@uky.edu; Shahid.awan@gmail.com; vdrach2@gmail.com;rafiq.koona@gmail.com

Received 28 December 2004; accepted 11 March 2005

Recently, various linear source models, for example, 103Pd RadioCoil™, have been introduced to overcome the shortcomings of traditional "seed" type interstitial prostate brachytherapy implants, such as migration and clumping of the seeds. However, the existing prostate treatment-planning systems have not been updated to perform dose calculation for implants with linear sources greater than 1.0 cm in length. In these investigations, two new models are developed for 3D dose calculation for a prostate implant with linear brachytherapy sources using the commercially available treatment-planning systems. The proposed models are referred to as the linear-segmented source (LSS) model and the point-segmented source (PSS) model. The calculated dose distributions obtained by these models for a single linear source have been validated by their comparison with the Monte Carlo-simulated data. Moreover, these models were used to calculate the dose distributions for a multilinear source prostate implant, and the results were compared to "seed" type implants. The results of these investigations show that the LSS model better approximates the linear sources than the PSS model. Moreover, these models have shown a better approximation of the dose distribution from a linear source for 0.5 cm source segments as compared to 1.0 cm source segments. However, for the points close to the longitudinal axis of the source located outside the region bounded by the active length, both models show differences of approximately ±15%. These deficiencies are attributed to the limitations of the TG43 formalism for elongated sources.

PACS number: 87.53.-j

Key words: brachytherapy, linear source, Pd-103, treatment planning, RadioCoil™

a  Corresponding author: Ali S. Meigooni, alimeig@uky.edu

I. INTRODUCTION

The standard 125I and 103Pd "seed" type brachytherapy sources are currently being employed in interstitial permanent implants(1,2) for various cancerous sites, such as the prostate. Despite the enormous success and improvements in interstitial brachytherapy, certain problems are still associated with loose seed implants, such as seed migration(3-5) and seed embolization.(6-8) Moreover, clumping(9,10) of loose seeds during the implant results in underdosed or overdosed regions in the prostate volume.(11) Visibility of existing seeds under ultrasound(12) has also been an issue for many years.
     In order to minimize the problems associated with conventional seed type brachytherapy sources, various pseudolinear or stranded source models, such as Rapid Strand™ (Oncura, Plymouth Meeting, PA), Readi-Strand™, and Vari-Strand™ (Advanced Care Medical, Inc., Oxford, CT) have been introduced. These pseudolinear source models are constructed by connecting a series of seeds in a linear fashion using a dissolvable tissue equivalent material. Muzio et al.(13) reported that using linked seeds embedded in vicryl sutures (strands) reduces radioactive seed migration. In addition, Al-Qaisieh et al.(14) carried out a study based on 238 patients and confirmed that the use of 125I stranded seeds for prostate brachytherapy reduces evidence of seed embolization to zero.
     Although stranded seeds(8,15) solved the problem of seed migration to some extent, the process of seed stranding is relatively lengthy since it is performed by a second company. This process not only increases the cost of seeds but also results in delay in patient treatment. Moreover, a seven-day stranding process of 103Pd seeds requires the production of seeds with approximately 25% higher activity to compensate for the source decay.
     Encouraging clinical results(8,13,16) of the stranded seeds attracted vendors to develop true linear sources. RadioMed Corporation (Tyngsboro, MA) recently introduced a linear 103Pd source called RadioCoil™. This new source is 0.35 mm in diameter and is available in integer lengths from 1.0 cm to 6.0 cm.
     Despite the enormous improvements in the technical aspects of brachytherapy source design and treatment delivery, there are several shortcomings in the linear source treatment-planning techniques. The traditional brachytherapy treatment-planning systems(17) were based on a point source approximation due to random distribution of the sources within the implant. However, this approximation is invalid for implants with linear or stranded sources. Although the implants with the flexible 192Ir wires have been around for a long time and are widely used in Europe, no simple and unified treatment-planning technique was adapted for isodose calculations until Schlienger et al.(18) presented a new method called Escargot. However, this technique is not utilized for treatment planning with low-energy brachytherapy sources. The linear source approximation model of the AAPM Task Group 43 (TG43) protocol(19) was recently implemented in the commercially available treatment-planning systems for dose calculation with low-energy, linear brachytherapy sources. However, there are certain limitations in their practical applications. For example, the present planning systems only assume the seed orientation(20) to be perpendicular to the ultrasound or CT images. Therefore, digitizing the center of the source is the only controlled variable for the source positions. Schaart et al.(21) have discussed the shortcomings of the original TG43 protocol for parameterization of long brachytherapy sources, which is an additional limitation for the treatment-planning systems. Therefore, planning software technology requires significant improvements to be compatible with treatment technology. As an intermediate solution to the above problem, we have developed two new models of dose calculation with linear brachytherapy sources until a more permanent solution is introduced.
     In this project, application of the new models for dose calculation with linear or stranded brachytherapy sources using the commercially available treatment-planning systems was studied. These models were validated by calculating the dose distributions around RadioCoil™ linear sources using Prowess™ and VariSeed™ treatment-planning systems, and the results were compared with Monte Carlo-simulated data.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Linear source

In these investigations, the 3D dose distributions of linear sources were calculated for single and multiple RadioCoil™ source implants. These sources are fabricated from a ribbon of high purity rhodium that is activated in a cyclotron to produce radioactive palladium-103, which is uniformly distributed throughout the ribbon. This ribbon is then turned into a coiled shape with a diameter of 0.35 mm and cut into integral lengths ranging from 1.0 cm to 6.0 cm. The apparent activity of these sources ranges from 1.0 - 2.8 mCi/cm. Dosimetric characteristics of RadioCoil™ source have been investigated by Meigooni et al.(22) following the updated TG43(TG43U1) recommendations.(23)

B. Monte Carlo simulations

The validity of the new models was examined by comparing the dose distributions around the RadioCoil™ linear source, obtained from the treatment-planning systems, with the published Monte Carlo-simulated data.(22) In addition to the published data, a few more Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the PTRAN Monte Carlo code (v 7.43)(24) with DLC 146 source library(25) in liquid water and dry air media. These calculations were carried out following the same procedures and geometrical setup as described in our previous publication.(22) These additional calculations were used to clarify the accuracy of superposition of the dose distribution from segmented sources as compared to that of a single linear source. Moreover, the intersource attenuation effect was also studied by simulating the active source segments in a series of nonactive source segments, as described in section D1.

C. Treatment-planning software

Clinical application of linear source models (longer than 1.0 cm) was tested on the Prowess™ 3.21 (Chico, CA) and VariSeed™ 7.1 treatment-planning systems (Varian Medical Systems, Charlottesville, VA). Both of these treatment-planning systems utilize 3D dosimetry technique to generate an overview of the dose distribution around a brachytherapy source using either line or point source approximations.(17) The TG43 formalisms(23) and the dosimetric characteristics of 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm long linear RadioCoil™ sources(22) were used in these planning systems. It should be noted that VariSeed™ accepts all the TG43 dosimetric characteristics (dose rate constant, radial dose function, 2D anisotropy functions, 1D anisotropy function, and anisotropy constant) of a particular source in a single library. The Prowess™ treatment-planning system incorporates these parameters into two separate libraries for point and line source approximations. However, v7.1 of the VariSeed™ treatment-planning system does not require two different radial dose functions for point and linear source models, as recommended by the updated TG43U1. Therefore, two separate source files must be generated for these calculation methods. Both the VariSeed™ and Prowess™ treatment-planning systems are capable of performing dose calculations using point source approximation; however, at this time, only VariSeed™ is able to use the linear source approximation. Neither of these two programs allows the overlapping of sources, independent of point or line source approximation. For example, if the dose calculation is performed with point source approximation using a 1.0 cm long source segment, the spacing between the point sources must be at least 1.0 cm. Similarly, for dose calculations with linear source approximation, the center-to-center spacing of the sources must be at least equal to the physical length of the source segment.

D. Linear source models

D.1 Single source configuration

In these investigations, two new models were introduced for prostate treatment planning with linear sources using available treatment-planning systems. With these models, the existing treatment-planning systems-such as Prowess™ and VariSeed™-could be utilized for dose calculations of prostate implants with elongated linear sources (i.e., active lengths longer than 1.0 cm). In these models, dose distribution around a linear source was calculated by superposition of dose contribution from a series of either linear-segmented sources (LSS) or a series of point-segmented sources (PSS) (Fig. 1). The source segments in these models consisted of either 0.5 cm or 1.0 cm long sources. For example, for the treatment planning of implants with RadioCoil™ sources, the TG43U1 dosimetric characteristics of 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm linear source segments were obtained from our previous publication.(22) The results of dose calculations from these models were compared with Monte Carlo-simulated data.

   

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the dose calculation model used in the experimental and treatment-planning procedures for a 3.0 cm long source. In the LSS and PSS models, a series of 0.5 cm or 1.0 cm (line or point sources) long source segments were used to represent a linear source.

     The presently available treatment-planning systems neglect the intersource attenuation effect, which is defined as the attenuation of the radiation from a one-source segment by the other source segments. To determine the impact of the intersource effect on linear-source dosimetry, the following calculations were performed using the LSS model with two different configurations described as below.

  1. Calculations were performed using six different 0.5 cm long source segments with intersource attenuations considered (Fig. 2, right panel). The TG43U1 parameters for each of these source segments were calculated using the Monte Carlo-simulation technique (following the same procedure that we described elsewhere (21)). These source configurations were designed to have an active 0.5 cm segment located between five non-active source segments with identical source geometry. The number of nonactive segments before and after the active source segment was selected to reproduce the exact position of the active source for the LSS model in the 3 cm linear source. The TG43U1 parameters of these six different active segments were introduced into the treatment-planning systems. The results of the linear source calculations using the LSS model with these source segments were compared to calculated dose without source attenuation.
  2. Dose calculations were repeated for a 3 cm long source using six identical 0.5 cm long source segments without any intersource attenuation (Fig. 2, left panel). The parameters for these sources were obtained from our previous publications.(22)

   

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the two different six-segmented source geometries used for verification of the effect of intersource attenuation. Solid blocks represent the active segments, and the shaded blocks represent the nonactive segments.

D.2 Multisource configuration

The clinical application of the LSS and PSS models was evaluated by treatment planning of an implant with multiple linear sources. These evaluations were performed by calculating the dose distribution in a typical prostate implant patient using the VariSeed™ planning system, for a prescription dose of 125 Gy. A total of 15 RadioCoil™ 103Pd sources, comprised of two 5 cm, five 4 cm, two 3 cm, and six 2 cm sources, with 3.878 U/cm, were used in these evaluations. Each linear source was approximated by a series of 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm source segments, using the LSS and PSS models. The 3D dose distribution, dose-volume histogram, dose to urethra, and source strength per unit length used in these calculations were compared with the results from "seed" type implant using Model 200 103Pd sources, assuming the same number of needles and prescription dose. For these comparisons, the source strengths for 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm RadioCoil™ linear source segments equivalent to that of the Model 200 103Pd source were obtained using the formalism presented by Heintz et al.(26)

III. RESULTS

A. Single-source configuration

Figure 3(a) shows the comparison of the Monte Carlo-calculated dose profile from a single 3.0 cm long source with the treatment-planning values based on the LSS model, at a distance of 0.5 cm away from the source, using a series of 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm long source segments. Similarly, Fig. 3(b) shows the comparison of the dose profiles at a distance of 1.0 cm away from a 3.0 cm long source obtained from Monte Carlo-simulated data and the LSS model. The values of the dose profiles shown in these figures are the total doses calculated for total source strengths of 775.8 U (600 mCi). The magnitudes of the source strengths in these calculations were selected such that the dose values at large distances can be determined with high precision. Table 1 shows the LSS model calculated dose profiles from 0.5 cm source segments in the VariSeed™ treatment-planning system and the percentage differences with the Monte Carlo-simulated data (Table 3) as a function of distance along (z) and away (x) from a 3.0 cm long source. Similarly, Table 2 shows the dose profile for a 3.0 cm long source segmented by a series of 1.0 cm sources, based on the LSS model.

   

Fig. 3. Comparisons of Monte Carlo and the LSS model (with a series of 0.5 cm, 1.0 cm long segments) calculated dose profiles at a distance of 0.5 cm (a) and 1.0 cm (b) from a 3.0 cm long source, calculated using the VariSeed™ planning system. The solid line is a fourth-order polynomial fit to the Monte Carlo–calculated data.

 

Table 1. The LSS model calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source using 0.5 cm source segments in the VariSeed™ treatment-planning system and their corresponding differences with the Monte Carlo–simulated values. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

 

Table 2. The LSS model calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source using 1.0 cm source segments in the VariSeed™ treatment-planning system and their corresponding differences with the Monte Carlo–simulated values. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

 

Table 3. The Monte Carlo–calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source as a function of distances along (z) and away (x) from the longitudinal axis of the source. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

     Figures 4(a) and (b) show the comparison of the dose calculations of a 3.0 cm long source using the PSS model, in the VariSeed™ planning system, with the Monte Carlo-simulated data at distances (i.e., away from the source) of 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm, respectively. Tables 5 and 6 show the dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source calculated with the PSS model, using 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm source segments and their percentage differences with the Monte Carlo-simulated data (Table 3). Similar results were obtained using the PSS model in the PROWESS™ (v3.21) treatment-planning system (Fig. 5, Tables 7 and 8). The PSS calculated values for other source lengths have indicated similar results.

   

Fig. 4. Comparisons of Monte Carlo and the PSS model (with a series of 0.5 cm, 1.0 cm long segments) calculated dose profiles at a distance of 0.5 cm (a) and 1.0 cm (b) from a 3.0 cm long source, calculated using the VariSeed™ planning system. The solid line is a fourth-order polynomial fit to the Monte Carlo–calculated data.

 

   

Fig. 5. Comparisons of Monte Carlo and the PSS model (with a series of 0.5 cm, 1.0 cm long segments) calculated dose profiles at a distance of 0.5 cm (a) and 1.0 cm (b) from a 3.0 cm long source, calculated using the Prowess™ planning system. The solid line is a fourth-order polynomial fit to the Monte Carlo–calculated data.

 

Table 5. The PSS model calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source based on 0.5 cm segments source data in the VariSeed™ treatment-planning system and their corresponding differences with the Monte Carlo–simulated values. These values are presented as a function of distances along (z) and away (x) from the longitudinal axis of the source. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

 

Table 6. The PSS model calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source based on 1.0 cm segments source data in the VariSeed™ treatment-planning system and their corresponding differences with the Monte Carlo–simulated values. These values are presented as a function of distances along (z) and away (x) from the longitudinal axis of the source. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

 

Table 7. The PSS model calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source using 0.5 cm segments source data in the Prowess™ treatment-planning system and their corresponding differences with the Monte Carlo–simulated values. These values are presented as a function of distances along (z) and away (x) from the longitudinal axis of the source. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

 

Table 8. The PSS model calculated total dose profiles of a 3.0 cm long source based on 1.0 cm segments source data in the PROWESS™ treatment-planning system and their corresponding differences with the Monte Carlo– simulated values. These values are presented as a function of distances along (z) and away (x) from the longitudinal axis of the source. Total source strength in each calculation method was 775.8 U.

     The impact of intersource attenuation on the LSS Model calculated dose profiles at 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm distances from a 3 cm long source is presented in Table 4. This Table indicates the percentage differences between the Monte Carlo simulated dose profile from a 3 cm linear source and the LSS-Model calculated data, with and without intersource attenuation. The LSS-Model calculations were performed using 0.5 cm source segments.

B. Multisource configuration

The clinical applications of the LSS and PSS models were examined by dose calculation in a sample prostate cancer patient. Figures 6(a) and (b) show the 3D views of the patterns of needles and dose distribution at the vicinity of the sources, respectively, indicating uniform dose distribution along each needle. Figure 6(b) also indicates that the dose calculations based on 0.5 cm source segments is a good representation of a linear source in each needle. Figures 6(c) and (d) show the dose distributions in two different axial images of the prostate gland. These figures indicate a good coverage of the prostate gland. The quantitative comparisons of the volumes of different isodose lines calculated with the LSS and PSS models for the 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm RadioCoil™ source segments with model 200, 103Pd source are shown in Tables 9 and 10. In addition, these tables show the comparisons between dose values covering the 90%, 50%, and 10% of the prostate gland, using both the RadioCoil™ and Model 200 103Pd sources. Total source strengths of 186.14 U, 191.80U, and 204.76U were used for calculations with Model 200, 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm RadioCoil™ source segments, respectively, for a prescription dose of 125 Gy.

     
     

Fig. 6. Clinical application of the LSS model with existing treatment-planning systems using a 0.5 cm RadioCoil™ linear source segments for a sample prostate cancer patient. Three –dimensional views of the patterns of needles and dose distribution at the vicinity of the sources ((a)and (b)). Dose distributions of the prostate implant calculated in two different axial views ((c) and (d)).

 

Table 9. The quantitative values of the volumes and dose coverage calculated using the LSS model for the RadioCoil™ wires and the Model 200, 103Pd sources with linear source approximation.

 

Table 10. The quantitative values of the volumes and dose coverage calculated using the PSS model for the RadioCoil™ wires and the Model 200, 103Pd sources with point source approximation.

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Two new dose calculation models have been introduced here to overcome the limitations of the current prostate brachytherapy treatment-planning systems for dose calculations around linear sources longer than 1.0 cm. These models allow calculation of dose distribution around a linear source using either a series of linear-segmented sources (LSS) or a series of point-segmented sources (PSS). Dosimetric characteristics of the 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm source segments were obtained from our previously published data,(22) which were determined according to the updated TG43U1 recommendations.(23) These new models were implemented in dose calculations around various source lengths using two different commercially available treatment-planning systems. The results of these calculations were compared with the Monte Carlo-simulated data in order to validate the accuracy of the new models.
     The results shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and Fig. 3 indicate that, for the points within the active boundary of a 3.0 cm long source, the LSS model, with 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm source segments, closely (within 4%) reproduces the Monte Carlo-simulated data of a given linear source. In addition, for the points outside of the region bounded by the active length of the source, when x ≥ 1 cm (i.e., x ≥ 1/2 of active length), the agreements between the LSS model and the Monte Carlo simulation were within 4%. However, the differences increased up to 14% for the points very close to the longitudinal axis of the source and with x < 1 cm (i.e., x < 1/2 of active length). These differences could be attributed to the following: (1) accuracy of the algorithm and methodology of interpolations in treatment-planning systems and (2) limitations of the TG43U1 formalism and parameters for the elongated sources. The differences were further increased (up to 21%) when the source attenuations (Fig. 2) were incorporated in the calculations (Table 4).
     The accuracy of the interpolation algorithm in the planning systems was verified by calculating the dose profile using an independent technique. This verification was performed by introducing the TG43 algorithms and source parameters for the 0.5 cm source segments(22) in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The radial dose function and 2D anisotropy functions were introduced in the form of polynomial coefficients, for ease of interpolation technique. Dose values were calculated by superposition of the dose contributions from each source segment for the same points as those in the treatment-planning systems. The results of these calculations were compared to the Monte Carlo-simulated values as well as the data obtained from the treatment-planning systems. These comparisons showed no significant differences (less than 1%) between this independent method and treatment-planning data. Therefore, the interpolation techniques of the treatment-planning systems were not contributing to the discrepancies between the Monte Carlo-simulated data and treatment-planning values. Moreover, it was found that the discrepancies always increase for the points at small angles immediately after the active length of the source, where the variation of the anisotropy function is the maximum. This discrepancy could be attributed to the deficiency of the TG43 formalism for defining the anisotropy and geometric function of the elongated source.
     The results of these investigations show that the PSS model underpredicts the Monte Carlo- calculated values up to 8% for 0.5 cm source segments and 12% for 1.0 cm source segments, for the points with x ≥ 1.0 cm. The disagreements increased for the points closer to the longitudinal axis of the source, particularly when larger source segments were used. These differences would further increase if the intersource attenuation is incorporated in the PSS model. The larger discrepancies of the PSS model compared to the LSS model could be attributed to the fact that the concept of point source approximation was based on random orientation of the seeds within the implant volume. Therefore, for a fixed source orientation, this model leads to underdose or overdose regions, which are shown in Tables 5 to 8.
     The results of multisource calculations show the clinical application of the new models with existing prostate treatment-planning systems. The qualitative and quantitative evaluation of these results indicates the practical application of this intermediate solution for dose calculation for prostate implants with linear brachytherapy sources. Tables 9 and 10 show the quantitative comparison between the volume of various isodose lines as well as the dose coverage for a typical prostate implant. These results indicate that values of the volume of the 100% dose (V100) calculated with both the LSS and the PSS models using the RadioCoil™ wires are in excellent agreement (within 1%) with the Model 200 103Pd source. However, the LSS model shows differences of up to 6% for V150% and 12% for V200, for both 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm source segments, as compared to the Model 200, 103Pd source. The V150 values, calculated with the PSS model, using 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm source segment, were found to be 5% and 8%, different from that of Model 200, 103Pd source. Moreover, the doses to the 90% (D90) and 50% (D50) of the prostate gland, calculated with RadioCoil™ wires were within 4% for the LSS model and up to 6% for the PSS model, as compared to those of the Model 200 103Pd source.
     In summary, the results of these investigations show that both the LSS and PSS models can easily be adapted for the present treatment-planning system for prostate implant dose calculations. These results indicate that for the 0.5 cm source segment, the LSS and PSS models are in good agreement (less than 5% and 8%, respectively) with that of Monte Carlo-simulated data. However, the LSS model gives better agreement than the PSS model. Use of 1.0 cm source segments in the PSS model leads to larger discrepancies, whereas the LSS model closely represents the dose profile of a linear source. Therefore, the use of 1.0 cm source segment in the PSS model is not recommended. The limitation of the LSS model is mainly for the points outside the active length and very close to the longitudinal axis of the source. This limitation is attributed to the deficiency of the anisotropy function defined by the TG43 protocol, as applied for the elongated source. The required modifications to the TG43 formalism for the elongated source are under investigation at our institution, and the results will be presented in forthcoming publications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was partially supported by the U.S Army Medical Research under DAMD 17-02-1-0242. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Piran Sioshansi and Mr. Ray Bricault for providing us the opportunity to work on this project.

REFERENCES

  1. YuY,Anderson LL, Li Z, et al. Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64. Med Phys. 1999;26(10):2054-2076.
  2. Prete JJ, Prestidge BR, Bice WS, Friedland JL, Stock RG, Grimm PD. A survey of physics and dosimetry practice of permanent prostate brachytherapy in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40(4):1001-1005.
  3. Nag S, Scaperoth DD, Badalament R, Hall SA, Burgers J. Transperineal palladium 103 prostate brachytherapy: Analysis of morbidity and seed migration. Urology 1995;45(1):87-92.
  4. Older RA, Synder B, Krupski TL, Glembocki DJ, Gillenwater JY. Radioactive implant migration in patients treated for localized prostate cancer with interstitial brachytherapy. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1590-1592.
  5. Davis BJ, Pfeifer EA, Wilson TM, King BF, Eshleman JS, Pisansky TM. Prostate brachytherapy seed migration to the right ventricle found at autopsy following acute cardiac dysrhythmia. J Urol. 2000;164(5):1661.
  6. Nag S, Vivekanandam S, Martinez-Monge R. Pulmonary embolization of permanently implanted radioactive palladium-103 seeds for carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;39(3):667-670.
  7. Steinfeld AD, Donahue BR, Plaine L. Pulmonary embolization of iodine-125 seeds following prostate implantation. Urology 1991;37(2):149-150.
  8. Tapen EM, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et al. Reduction of radioactive seed embolization to the lung following prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42(5):1063-1067.
  9. Roberson PL, Narayana V, McShan DL, Winfield RJ, McLaughlin PW. Source placement error for permanent implant of the prostate. Med Phys. 1997;24(2):251-257.
  10. Dawson JE, Wu T, Roy T, Gu JY, Kim H. Dose effects of seeds placement deviations from pre-planned positions in ultrasound guided prostate implants. Radiother Oncol. 1994;32(3):268-270.
  11. Yu Y, Waterman FM, Suntharalingam N, Schulsinger A. Limitations of the minimum peripheral dose as a parameter for dose specification in permanent 125I prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;34(3):717-725.
  12. Davis BJ, Kinnick RR, Fatemi M, Lief EP, Robb RA, Greenleaf JF. Measurement of the ultrasound backscatter signal from three seed types as a function of incidence angle: Application to permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(4):1174-1182.
  13. Di Muzio N, Longobardi B, Losa A, et al. Seed migration in prostate brachytherapy: A re-implant case report. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(912):913-915.
  14. Al-Qaisieh B, Carey B, Ash D, Bottomley D. The use of linked seeds eliminates lung embolization following permanent seed implantation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(2):397-399.
  15. Fuller DB, Koziol JA, Feng AC. Prostate brachytherapy seed migration and dosimetry: Analysis of stranded sources and other potential predictive factors. Brachytherapy 2004;3(1):10-19.
  16. Redpath A. Automatic determination of needle and source positions for brachytherapy of the prostate using 125Iodine Rapid Strand. Radiother Oncol. 2002;64(2):215-227.
  17. Lindsay P, Battista J, Van Dyk J. The effect of seed anisotropy on brachytherapy dose distributions using 125I and 103Pd. Med Phys. 2001;28(3):336-345.
  18. Schlienger M, Rosenwald JC, Miclutia M, Quint R, Pierquim B. Controle dosimetrique en brachycuritherapie par les isodoses "escargot". Acta Radiologica 1970;9:282-288.
  19. Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, Weaver KA, Williamson JF, Meigooni AS. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys. 1995;22(2):209-234.
  20. Corbett JF, Jezioranski JJ, Crook J, Tran T, Yeung IW. The effect of seed orientation deviations on the quality of 125I prostate implants. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46(11):2785-2800.
  21. Schaart DR, Clarijs MC, Bos AJ. On the applicability of the AAPM TG-60/TG-43 dose calculation formalism to intravascular line sources: Proposal for an adapted formalism. Med Phys. 2001;28(4):638-653.
  22. Meigooni AS, Zhang H, Clark JR, Rachabatthula V, Koona RA. Dosimetric characteristics of the new RadioCoil™ 103Pd wire line source for use in permanent brachytherapy implants. Med Phys. 2004;31(11):3095-3105.
  23. Rivard MJ, Coursey BM, DeWerd LA, et al. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys. 2004;31(3):633-674.
  24. Williamson JF. Monte Carlo simulation of photon transport phenomena. In: Morin RL, editor. Monte Carlo simulation in the radiological science. Boca Raton (FL): CRC; 1988: 53-102.
  25. Trubey DK. HUGI VI notes documentation for the DLC-146 code package. Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, 1989.
  26. Heintz BH, Wallace RE, Hevezi JM. Comparison of I-125 sources used for permanent interstitial implants. Med Phys. 2001;28(4):671-682.



© 2005 Am. Coll. Med. Phys.