Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026

Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
Investigation of interseed attenuation and tissue composition effects in (125)I seed implant prostate brachytherapy
Josh Mason1, Bashar Al-Qaisieh2, Peter Bownes2
1Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, St. James's Institute of Oncology, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK; Academic Unit of Medical Physics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Purpose:
To use Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and sector analysis to assess interseed attenuation and scatter (ISA) and tissue effects in permanent seed implant prostate brachytherapy and to compare methods for modeling tissue.
Methods And Materials:
CT-based postimplant plan simulations for 40 patients were evaluated using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters and sector analysis. Simulations in water (to evaluate ISA alone) and tissue assigned from contours or CT data, with and without calcifications, were compared.
Results:
For patients without calcifications, mean combined ISA and tissue effect reduced prostate D90 by 4.2 Gy (2.9%), prostate V100 by 0.5 cm(3) (1.4%), urethra D10 by 8.6 Gy (3.5%), rectal [Formula: see text] by 11.6 Gy (10.5%), and the 100% isodose volume by 4.7 cm(3). Larger differences were observed comparing planned dose to postimplant, mean prostate D90 reduced from 185 to 149.8 Gy (-19%). For patients with calcifications, larger tissue effects were observed, prostate D90 reduced by up to 7.4%. Sector analysis showed dose reductions were larger in anterior and base sectors of the prostate. For patients without calcifications, contour- and CT-based tissue model results agreed within <0.5% for all DVH parameters, with up to 4% difference for patients with calcifications.
Conclusions:
Advanced brachytherapy dose calculation methods that take account of ISA and tissue effects show that clinical (125)I implant dose is different from TG-43U1 (AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report-Update 1) calculations, reducing DVH parameter values particularly for patients with calcifications. Peripheral dose and areas of the implant with relatively poorer coverage are particularly affected. However, dose reductions are small compared with other postimplant dose uncertainties.
More Related Videos
09:49A Whole Body Dosimetry Protocol for Peptide-Receptor Radionuclide Therapy PRRT: 2D Planar Image and Hybrid 2D+3D SPECT/CT Image Methods
Published on: April 24, 2020
05:08Targeted and Selective Treatment of Pluripotent Stem Cell-derived Teratomas Using External Beam Radiation in a Small-animal Model
Published on: February 17, 2019