Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2025
A 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
Determining Combined Modality Dosimetric Constraints by Integration of IMRT and LDR Prostate Brachytherapy Dosimetry
Adam C Riegel1,2, Jason D Nosrati1, Baho U Sidiqi1
1Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York.
Purpose:
Intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing combination external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy have demonstrated increased genitourinary (GU) toxicity. We have previously demonstrated a method to combine EBRT and LDR dosimetry. In this work, we use this technique for a sample of patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, correlate with clinical toxicity, and suggest preliminary summed organ-at-risk constraints for future investigation.
Methods And Materials:
Intensity modulated EBRT and 103Pd-based LDR treatment plans were combined for 138 patients using biological effective dose (BED) and deformable image registration. GU and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were compared with combined dosimetry for the urethra, bladder, and rectum. Differences between doses in each toxicity grade were assessed by analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Combined dosimetric constraints are proposed using the mean organ-at-risk dose, subtracting 1 standard deviation for a conservative recommendation.
Results:
The majority of our 138-patient cohort experienced grade 0 to 2 GU or GI toxicity. Six grade 3 toxicities were noted. Mean prostate BED D90 (± 1 standard deviation) was 165.5±11.1 Gy. Mean urethra BED D10 was 230.3±33.9 Gy. Mean bladder BED was 35.2±11.0 Gy. Mean rectum BED D2cc was 85.6±24.3 Gy. Significant dosimetric differences between toxicity grades were found for mean bladder BED, bladder D15, and rectum D50, but differences between individual means were not statistically significant. Given the low incidence of grade 3 GU and GI toxicity, we propose urethra D10 <200 Gy, rectum D2cc <60 Gy, and bladder D15 <45 Gy as preliminary dose constraints for combined modality therapy.
Conclusions:
We successfully applied our dose integration technique to a sample of patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Incidence of grade 3 toxicity was low, suggesting that combined doses observed in this study were safe. We suggest preliminary dose constraints as a conservative starting point to investigate and escalate prospectively in a future study.
