Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026
Renal Capsule Xenografting and Subcutaneous Pellet Implantation for the Evaluation of Prostate Carcinogenesis and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Published on: August 28, 2013
Dosimetric effects of edema in permanent prostate seed implants: a rigorous solution
1Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06504, USA. zhe.chen@yale.edu
Purpose:
To derive a rigorous analytic solution to the dosimetric effects of prostate edema so that its impact on the conventional pre-implant and post-implant dosimetry can be studied for any given radioactive isotope and edema characteristics.
Methods And Materials:
The edema characteristics observed by Waterman et al (Int. J. Rad. Onc. Biol. Phys, 41:1069-1077; 1998) was used to model the time evolution of the prostate and the seed locations. The total dose to any part of prostate tissue from a seed implant was calculated analytically by parameterizing the dose fall-off from a radioactive seed as a single inverse power function of distance, with proper account of the edema-induced time evolution. The dosimetric impact of prostate edema was determined by comparing the dose calculated with full consideration of prostate edema to that calculated with the conventional dosimetry approach where the seed locations and the target volume are assumed to be stationary.
Results:
A rigorous analytic solution on the relative dosimetric effects of prostate edema was obtained. This solution proved explicitly that the relative dosimetric effects of edema, as found in the previous numerical studies by Yue et. al. (Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 43, 447-454, 1999), are independent of the size and the shape of the implant target volume and are independent of the number and the locations of the seeds implanted. It also showed that the magnitude of relative dosimetric effects is independent of the location of dose evaluation point within the edematous target volume. It implies that the relative dosimetric effects of prostate edema are universal with respect to a given isotope and edema characteristic. A set of master tables for the relative dosimetric effects of edema were obtained for a wide range of edema characteristics for both (125)I and (103)Pd prostate seed implants.
Conclusions:
A rigorous analytic solution of the relative dosimetric effects of prostate edema has been derived for a class of edema characterized by Waterman et al. The solution proved that the dosimetric effects caused by the edema are universal functions of edema characteristics for a given isotope. It provides an efficient tool to examine the relative dosimetric effects of edema for any given edema characteristics and for any isotopes that may be considered for prostate implants.
