Person:

Damato, Antonio L.

Background: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Methods: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation. Results: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively. Conclusions: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation.

Purpose In this study, we present the clinical implementation of a novel transoral balloon centering esophageal applicator (BCEA) and the initial clinical experience in high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment of esophageal cancer, using this applicator. Material and methods Acceptance testing and commissioning of the BCEA were performed prior to clinical use. Full performance testing was conducted including measurements of the dimensions and the catheter diameter, evaluation of the inflatable balloon consistency, visibility of the radio-opaque markers, congruence of the markers, absolute and relative accuracy of the HDR source in the applicator using the radiochromic film and source position simulator, visibility and digitization of the applicator on the computed tomography (CT) images under the clinical conditions, and reproducibility of the offset. Clinical placement of the applicator, treatment planning, treatment delivery, and patient's response to the treatment were elaborated as well. Results: The experiments showed sub-millimeter accuracy in the source positioning with distal position at 1270 mm. The digitization (catheter reconstruction) was uncomplicated due to the good visibility of markers. The treatment planning resulted in a favorable dose distribution. This finding was pronounced for the treatment of the curvy anatomy of the lesion due to the improved repeatability and consistency of the delivered fractional dose to the patient, since the radioactive source was placed centrally within the lumen with respect to the clinical target due to the five inflatable balloons. Conclusions: The consistency of the BCEA positioning resulted in the possibility to deliver optimized non-uniform dose along the catheter, which resulted in an increase of the dose to the cancerous tissue and lower doses to healthy tissue. A larger number of patients and long-term follow-up will be required to investigate if the delivered optimized treatment can lead to improved clinical outcomes.