Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 2, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Integrating external beam and prostate seed implant dosimetry for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer using
Adam C Riegel1, Ann Cooney2, Samantha To3
1Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, NY; Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY.
Purpose:
Combining external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and prostate seed implant (PSI) is efficacious in treating intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer at the cost of increased genitourinary toxicity. Accurate combined dosimetry remains elusive due to lack of registration between treatment plans and different biological effect. The current work proposes a method to convert physical dose to biological effective dose (BED) and spatially register the dose distributions for more accurate combined dosimetry.
Methods And Materials:
A PSI phantom was CT scanned with and without seeds under rigid and deformed transformations. The resulting CTs were registered using image-based rigid registration (RI), fiducial-based rigid registration (RF), or b-spline deformable image registration (DIR) to determine which was most accurate. Physical EBRT and PSI dose distributions from a sample of 91 previously-treated combined-modality prostate cancer patients were converted to BED and registered using RI, RF, and DIR. Forty-eight (48) previously-treated patients whose PSI occurred before EBRT were included as a "control" group due to inherent registration. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters were compared for RI, RF, DIR, DICOM, and scalar addition of DVH parameters using ANOVA or independent Student's t tests (α = 0.05).
Results:
In the phantom study, DIR was the most accurate registration algorithm, especially in the case of deformation. In the patient study, dosimetry from RI was significantly different than the other registration algorithms, including the control group. Dosimetry from RF and DIR were not significantly different from the control group or each other.
Conclusions:
Combined dosimetry with BED and image registration is feasible. Future work will utilize this method to correlate dosimetry with clinical outcomes.
