Purpose: With the advent of intraoperative optimized planning, the treatment of prostate cancer with permanent implants has reached an unprecedented level of dose conformity. However, because of well-documented (and unavoidable) inaccuracies in seed placement into the gland, carrying out a plan results in a large degree of variability relative to the intended dose distribution. This brings forth the need to periodically readjust the plan to allow for the real positions of seeds already implanted. In this paper, an algorithm for performing this task, hereby described as intraoperative dynamic dose optimization (IDDO), is presented and assessed.
Methods and materials: The general scheme for performing IDDO consists of three steps: (1) at some point during the implant, coordinates of implanted seeds are identified; (2) seed images are projected onto the reference frame of the ultrasound images for planning; and (3) the plan is reoptimized. Work on the first two steps is reported elsewhere. Here, we focus on the strategy for implementing the reoptimization step. An optimal treatment plan is first obtained based on initial operating room-acquired ultrasound images. We analyze the sensitivity and effect of the IDDO procedure with respect to the total number of reoptimizations performed. Specifically, we consider reoptimizing 2, 3, and 4 times. When two reoptimizations are used, half of the seeds from the initial optimal plan are implanted. The first reoptimization is performed on the remaining possible seed positions, and all the seeds designated in this reoptimized plan are implanted. The second (final) reoptimization is done on the remaining unused seed positions to ensure 100% coverage of the gland and to eliminate possible cold spots in the gland. Similarly, when three reoptimization steps are used, one-third of the seeds from the initial optimized plan, one-half of the seeds from the first reoptimization, and all seeds from the second reoptimization are implanted. The third (final) reoptimization is performed to assist in eliminating possible cold spots. Reoptimizing four times proceeds in a like manner. Fifteen patient cases are used for comparison. Strict dose bounds of 100% and 120% of the prescription dose are imposed on the urethra, and 100% coverage is imposed on the prostate volume. To assist in achieving good conformity, prostate contour points are assigned a target upper dose bound of 150% of the prescription dose.
Results: A two-way comparison is performed: (a) initial optimized plan, (b) IDDO plan. Postimplant dose analysis, coverage and conformity measures, as well as actual dose received by urethra and rectum are used to gauge the results. The initial optimized plan consistently provides 93% prescription dose coverage to the gland with average conformity index of 1.32. The urethra dose ranges within 100% to 150%, and the maximum dose delivered to the rectum reaches 91% of the prescription dose. On average, about 50% of the urethra receives more than 120% of the prescription dose, and 19% of the rectum volume receives more than the 78% upper dose limit. For the IDDO plan, 100% postimplant coverage with 1.16 conformity is achieved. Urethra and rectum dose is maintained within the prescribed 100% to 120% range and 78% upper bound, respectively.
Conclusions: With real-time treatment planning, it is possible to dynamically reoptimize treatment plans to account for actual seed positions (as opposed to planned positions) and needle-induced swelling to the gland during implantation. Postimplant analysis shows that the final seed configuration resulting from the IDDO method yields improved dosimetry. The algorithmic design ensures that one can achieve complete coverage while maintaining good conformity, thus sparing excess radiation to external tissue. The study also provides evidence of the possibility of morbidity reduction to urethra and rectum (because of reduced dose delivered to these structures) via the use of IDDO planning. Clinical studies are needed to validate the importance of our approach.