A dynamic model for the estimation of optimum timing of computed tomography scan for dose evaluation of 125I or 103Pd seed implant of prostate.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The dosimetric evaluation of permanent 125I or 103Pd prostate implant is based on the assumption that both prostate and seeds are static throughout the entire treatment time which lasts months. However, the prostate is often edematous after the surgical implantation of seeds. Therefore, both the volume of the prostate and the seed locations change dynamically as the edema resolves. This effect has impact on the validity of postimplant analysis based upon a CT scan. If a CT scan is taken too early after implantation while there is edema in the prostate, the dose delivered by the implant may be underestimated. If the imaging is delayed too long, the dose may be overestimated. The magnitude of this effect depends on both of the half-life of the isotope used and the half-life and magnitude of the edema. This study describes a dynamic biomathematical model which takes edema into account in calculating the dose delivered by the implant and is used to investigate the optimum time to obtain the postimplant CT scan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The dynamic biomathematical model is a numerical integration of the accumulated dose in which the prostate dimensions, the seed locations, and the source strength are all functions of time. The function which describes the change in prostate dimensions and seed locations as a function of time was determined in a separate study by analysis of serial postimplant CT scans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) of the prostate for the total dose generated by the dynamic model are compared to DVHs generated by CT scans simulated for postimplant intervals ranging from 0 to 300 days after the implantation for 30 different combinations of the magnitude and duration of edema.

RESULTS

DVHs of the prostate calculated by taking edema into account show that the time of obtaining a CT scan for postimplant analysis is critical to the accuracy of dose evaluations. The comparison of the DVHs generated by the dynamic model to those generated by the CT scans simulated for a range of postimplant intervals show that obtaining the CT scan too early tends to underestimate the total dose while obtaining the CT scan after the edema is resolved tends to overestimate it. The results show that the optimum timing of the CT scan depends upon the duration of the edema and the half-life of the radioisotope used. It is almost independent of the magnitude of the edema. Thus, a unique optimum time window for the imaging study cannot be defined for either 125I or 103Pd implants. However, an optimum time window can be identified for which the calculated dose, on the average, will generally differ from the actual dose by less than 5%, with a maximum error not exceeding 15%. Such a window is 4 to 10 weeks after the implantation for an 125I implant, and 2 to 4 weeks for a 103Pd implant.

CONCLUSIONS

A dynamic biomathematical model to correct for the effects of edema in calculating the total dose delivered by an 125I or 103Pd seed implant has been developed. The model has been used to investigate the optimum time window during which the postimplant CT scans for analysis should be obtained.