PubMed · 7893112
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Gerbaulet, B Court, F Eschwege. 1994. [Brachytherapy. General principles].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7893112/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
To identify luminal dimension changes occurring within the stent alone and within the stent + margin segment, we reviewed the quantitative angiographic results obtained from the Scripps Coronary Radiation to Inhibit Proliferation Post Stenting (SCRIPPS) trial, a prospective randomized trial assessing the effect of iridium-192 (Ir-192) on the prevention of stent restenosis. Fifty-five patients were randomly assigned to receive Ir-192 or placebo sources after successful intervention. Procedural and 6-month follow-up cineangiograms were quantitatively reviewed in 52 patients to identify changes within the stent and the stent + margin segment. The percent diameter stenosis was lower within the stent than within the stent + margin segment after the procedure (6 +/- 22% vs 21+/- 15%, p <0.0001) and at follow-up (28 +/- 29% vs 42 +/- 21%, p <0.0001). As a result, a lower restenosis rate was found within the stent than within the stent + margin (25% vs 37%, p <0.0001); isolated stent margin restenosis occurred in 11.5% of lesions. Treatment with Ir-192 reduced restenosis within the stent (8% vs 39%; p = 0.010) and within the stent + margin segment (17% vs 54%; p = 0.010); the reduction in restenosis at the margin only (8.3% vs 14.3%, p = 0.503) was not significant. The lowest relative risk for restenosis resulting from Ir-192 occurred within the stent (0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.86) compared with the stent + margin segment (0.31; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.81) or the stent margin (0.58; 95% CI 0.12 to 2.91). In the SCRIPPS trial, 32% of restenosis occurred at the stent margins. Treatment with Ir-192 reduced restenosis primarily within the stent rather than the margin. Whether extending the treatment length to fully include the stent margins will further reduce restenosis requires further study.
PURPOSE: The postoperative evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy requires a subjective determination of the implant volume. This work investigates the magnitude of the effect that various methods of treatment volume delineation have on dosimetric quality parameters for a treatment planning philosophy that defines a target volume as the prostate with a periprostatic margin. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight consecutive prostate brachytherapy patients with a prescribed dose of 145 Gy from 125I as monotherapy comprised the study population. The prostate ultrasound volume was enlarged to a planning volume by an average factor of 1.8 to encompass probable extracapsular extension in the periprostatic region. For this cohort, the mean pretreatment parameters were 30.3 cm3 ultrasound volume, 51.8 cm3 planning volume, 131 seeds per patient, and 42.9 mCi total activity. On CT study sets obtained less than 2 hours postoperatively, target volumes were drawn using three methods: prostate plus a periprostatic margin, prostate only which excluded the puborectalis muscles, the periprostatic fat and the periprostatic venous plexus, and the preplanning ultrasound magnified to conform to the magnification factor of the postimplant CT scan. Three sets of 5 dosimetric quality parameters corresponding to the different volumetric approaches were calculated: V100, V150, and V200 which are the fractions of the target volume covered by 100, 150, and 200% of the prescribed dose, and D90 and D100, which are the minimal doses covering 90 and 100% of the target volume. RESULTS: The postoperative CT volume utilizing the prostate plus margin technique was comparable to the initial planning volume (mean 55.5 cm3 vs. 51.8 cm3, respectively) whereas those determined via superimposing the preplan ultrasound resulted in volumes nearly identical to the initial ultrasound evaluation (mean 32.4 cm3 vs. 30.3 cm3). The prostate only approach resulted in volumes approximately 25% larger than the ultrasound volume approach. Despite the volume determinations being markedly different, no significant differences between the approaches were appreciated for V100, V150, V200, and D90. Large variations seen in D100 were uncorrelated to any of the other parameters and make D100 unsuitable as a quality indicator. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of a logarithmic measure, the variation between volumetric approach for V100, V150, V200, and D90 was less than one-fifth the variation of the CT volumes. These results which indicate relative independence of postimplant CT volume determination and dosimetric quality are only valid for a planning philosophy that includes the prostate with a periprostatic margin as the target volume.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.