Report of the ad hoc committee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee on 125I sealed source dosimetry

Kubo, Hideo; Coursey, Bert M.; Hanson, W. F.; Kline, Robert W.; Seltzer, S. M.; Shuping, Ralph E.; Williamson, Jeffrey F.

doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00767-0

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…D 100 ,D 90 ,D 80 Dose to 100%, 90%, 80% of the target volume for dosimetric evaluation. DVH Dose-volume histogram.…”

Section: Adclmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TRUS Transrectal ultrasound. V 200 ,V 100 ,V 90 ,V 80 ͑fractional͒ Volume of the prostate target for dosimetric evaluation that received 200%, 100%, 90%, 80% of the prescribed mPD.…”

Section: Mpdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…80 As indicated by Kubo et al, 80 two separate but related events need to be considered in the discussion of dosimetry data revision for 125 I seeds: When applied to the dosimetry of permanent prostate seed implants, the isotropic point source approximation is commonly used for the dose calculation model. At distance r from the center of the source, the dose delivered at total decay from an 125 I or 103 Pd seed is…”

Section: B Dosimetry Data Revisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, it is recommended to construct the DVH for this target volume, and to document the dose levels that cover 100%, 90% and 80% of the target volume for postimplant evaluation, i.e., D 100 , D 90 and D 80 , and the fractional volume receiving 200%, 100%, 90% and 80% of the prescribed dose, i.e., V 200 , V 100 , V 90 and V 80 . Current literature suggests that imaging studies for dosimetric evaluation are ideally obtained 2-3 weeks postimplantation for 103 Pd implants and approximately 4 weeks postimplantation for 125 I implants.…”

Section: H Postimplant Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is now considerable evidence to suggest that technical innovations, 3D image-based planning, template guidance, computerized dosimetry analysis and improved quality assurance practice have converged in synergy in modern prostate brachytherapy, which promise to lead to increased tumor control and decreased toxicity. A substantial part of the medical physicist's contribution to this multi-disciplinary modality has a direct impact on the factors that may singly or jointly determine the treatment outcome. It is therefore of paramount importance for the medical physics community to establish a uniform standard of practice for prostate brachytherapy physics, so that the therapeutic potential of the modality can be maximally and consistently realized in the wider healthcare community. A recent survey in the U.S. for prostate brachytherapy revealed alarming variance in the pattern of practice in physics and dosimetry, particularly in regard to dose calculation, seed assay and time/method of postimplant imaging. Because of the large number of start-up programs at this time, it is essential that the roles and responsibilities of the medical physicist be clearly defined, consistent with the pivotal nature of the clinical physics component in assuring the ultimate success of prostate brachytherapy. It was against this background that the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine formed Task Group No. 64, which was charged ͑1͒ to review the current techniques in prostate seed implant brachytherapy, ͑2͒ to summarize the present knowledge in treatment planning, dose specification and reporting, ͑3͒ to recommend practical guidelines for the clinical medical physicist, and ͑4͒ to identify issues for future investigation.

show abstract

“…D 100 ,D 90 ,D 80 Dose to 100%, 90%, 80% of the target volume for dosimetric evaluation. DVH Dose-volume histogram.…”

Section: Adclmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TRUS Transrectal ultrasound. V 200 ,V 100 ,V 90 ,V 80 ͑fractional͒ Volume of the prostate target for dosimetric evaluation that received 200%, 100%, 90%, 80% of the prescribed mPD.…”

Section: Mpdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Dosimetry Data Revisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: H Postimplant Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The calibration, however, included effects of the 4.5 keV K-edge characteristic X-rays produced in the seed's titanium encapsulation, leading to an exaggerated estimate of the source strength. [17][18][19]. In 1995, the AAPM Task Group 43 published its recommendations on dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources [20], unveiling the now well-accepted TG43 dose calculation formalism for the only seed sources available at the time: the Nycomed-Amersham 6702 and 6711 I-125 seeds, the Theragenics TP-200 Pd-103 seed, and the Ir-192 seeds from Best Medical and AlphaOmega.…”

Section: Seed Design and Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physics: Low-Energy Brachytherapy Physics

Yang

Lü

Pope³

et al. 2016

Brachytherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Long-term complications with prostate implants: Iodine-125 vs. palladium-103

Peschel

Chen

Roberts

et al. 1999

Radiat. Oncol. Investig.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The linear quadratic model predicts that the normal tissue biologically effective dose (BED) will be lower with palladium‐103 (Pd‐103) vs. iodine‐125 (I‐125) for the currently prescribed minimum tumor doses (MTD) used for I‐125 (160 Gy) and Pd‐103 (115 Gy) prostate cancer brachytherapy. The predicted BEDs for I‐125 and Pd‐103 suggest that the long‐term complication rates should be lower with Pd‐103 vs. I‐125 in clinical practice. A review of 123 early stage T1c and T2 prostate cancer patients implanted at Yale University with I‐125 (82 patients) or Pd‐103 (41 patients) reveals a significantly lower overall complication rate with Pd‐103 (0%) vs. I‐125 (13%). Most important, the grade III–IV complication rate for Pd‐103 was 0% vs. 6% for I‐125. The 3‐year actuarial probability of remaining free of a long‐term complication was 100% for Pd‐103 vs. 82% for I‐125 (P < 0.01). A review of the literature for 992 patients implanted with I‐125 vs. 540 patients implanted with Pd‐103 shows a consistently higher complication rate for I‐125 vs. Pd‐103. Assuming that the MTD for Pd‐103 may be increased to produce an equivalent late‐reacting normal tissue BED to that for I‐125, then the radiobiology model predicts the log10 cell kill for Pd‐103 implant will be greater than that of an I‐125 implant for all tumor doubling times (high‐grade tumors and low‐grade tumors). The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of future research directions for prostate implants. Radiat. Oncol. Invest. 7:278–288, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Report of the ad hoc committee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee on 125I sealed source dosimetry

Cited by 33 publications

References 8 publications

Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64

Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64

Physics: Low-Energy Brachytherapy Physics

Long-term complications with prostate implants: Iodine-125 vs. palladium-103

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About