Dose escalation in permanent brachytherapy for prostate cancer: dosimetric and biological considerations.

No prospective dose escalation study for prostate brachytherapy (PB) with permanent implants has been reported. In this work, we have performed a dosimetric and biological analysis to explore the implications of dose escalation in PB using 125I and 103Pd implants. The concept of equivalent uniform dose (EUD), proposed originally for external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), is applied to low dose rate brachytherapy. For a given 125I or 103Pd PB, the EUD for tumour that corresponds to a dose distribution delivered by EBRT is calculated based on the linear quadratic model. The EUD calculation is based on the dose volume histogram (DVH) obtained retrospectively from representative actual patient data. Tumour control probabilities (TCPs) are also determined in order to compare the relative effectiveness of different dose levels. The EUD for normal tissue is computed using the Lyman model. A commercial inverse treatment planning algorithm is used to investigate the feasibility of escalating the dose to prostate with acceptable dose increases in the rectum and urethra. The dosimetric calculation is performed for five representative patients with different prostate sizes. A series of PB dose levels are considered for each patient using 125I and 103Pd seeds. It is found that the PB prescribed doses (minimum peripheral dose) that give an equivalent EBRT dose of 64.8, 70.2, 75.6 and 81 Gy with a fraction size of 1.8 Gy are 129, 139, 150 and 161 Gy for 125I and 103, 112, 122 and 132 Gy for 103Pd implants, respectively. Estimates of the EUD and TCP for a series of possible prescribed dose levels (e.g., 145, 160, 170 and 180 Gy for 125I and 125, 135, 145 and 155 for 103Pd implants) are tabulated. The EUD calculation was found to depend strongly on DVHs and radiobiological parameters. The dosimetric calculations suggest that the dose to prostate can be escalated without a substantial increase in both rectal and urethral dose. For example, increasing the PB prescribed dose from 145 to 180 Gy increases EUD for the rectum by only 3%. Our studies indicate that the dose to urethra can be kept within 100-120% of the prescription dose for all the dose levels studied. In conclusion, dose escalation in permanent implant for localized prostate cancer may be advantageous. It is dosimetrically possible to increase dose to prostate without a substantial increase in the dose to the rectum and urethra. Based on the results of our studies, a prospective dose escalation trial for prostate permanent implants has been initiated at our institution.