Premium
Coverage of the external prostatic region by the hybrid method compared with the conventional method of prostate low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy: A randomized controlled study
Author(s) -
Tanaka Nobumichi,
Asakawa Isao,
Nakai Yasushi,
Miyake Makito,
Anai Satoshi,
Yamaki Kaori,
Fujii Tomomi,
Hasegawa Masatoshi,
Fujimoto Kiyohide
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.172
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1442-2042
pISSN - 0919-8172
DOI - 10.1111/iju.14349
Subject(s) - medicine , brachytherapy , prostate , prostate cancer , nuclear medicine , urology , prostate brachytherapy , dose rate , radiation treatment planning , randomized controlled trial , radiology , radiation therapy , surgery , cancer , medical physics
Objectives To compare the dose evaluation parameters between conventional (using loose seed alone) and hybrid (using loose seeds in combination with stranded seeds) low‐dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Methods Between 2014 and July 2016, a total of 219 patients who underwent low‐dose rate brachytherapy were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (trial number: UMIN 000012780). Patients were randomized and allocated to two groups (conventional method vs hybrid method). Post‐dosimetric parameters (%D90, minimal percentage of the dose received by 90% of the prostate gland; V100, percentage of the prostate volume receiving 100% of the prescribed minimal peripheral dose; V150, percentage of the prostate volume receiving 150% of the prescribed minimal peripheral dose; %UD30, minimal percentage of the dose received by 30% of the urethra; R100, rectal volume [mL] receiving 100% of the prescribed dose) calculated at 1 month after seed implantation by computed tomography scan were compared between the two groups, as well as the post‐dosimetric parameters using the planning target volume of the prostate + 5‐mm margin. Results Regarding dose evaluation parameters, the prostate dose (%D90, V100, V150) and the urethral dose (%UD30) were not significantly different between the two groups, whereas V100 (+5‐mm margin) and %D90 (+5‐mm margin) were significantly higher in the hybrid method group compared with the conventional method group ( P < 0.001). Conclusion The present randomized study shows that the hybrid method of low‐dose rate brachytherapy can achieve a higher coverage of the periprostatic region compared with the conventional method while maintaining an acceptable level of urethral and rectal doses.