Justification for inter-fraction correction of catheter movement in fractionated high dose-rate brachytherapy treatment of prostate cancer

Background and purpose: Fractionated high dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer relies on reproducible catheter positions for each fraction to ensure adequate tumour coverage while minimising dose to normal tissues. Peri-prostatic oedema may cause caudal displacement of the catheters relative to the prostate gland between fractions. This can be corrected for by changing source dwell positions or by physical re-advancement of catheters before treatment. Materials and methods: Data for 20 consecutive monotherapy patients receiving three HDR fractions of 10.5 Gy per fraction over 2 days were analysed retrospectively. Pre-treatment CT scans were used to assess the effect of catheter movement between fractions on implant quality, with and without movement correction. Implant quality was evaluated using dosimetric parameters. Results: Compared to the first fraction (f1) the mean inter-fraction caudal movement relative to the prostate base was 7.9 mm (f2) (range 0-21 mm) and 3.9 mm (f3) (range 0-25.5 mm). PTV D90% was reduced without movement correction by a mean of 27.8% (f2) and 32.3% (f3), compared with 5.3% and 5.1%, respectively, with catheter movement correction. Dose to 2 cc of the rectum increased by a mean of 0.69 (f2) and 0.76 Gy (f3) compared with an increase of 0.03 and 0.04 Gy, respectively, with correction. The urethra V12 also increased by a mean of 0.36 (f2) and 0.39 Gy (f3) compared with 0.06 and 0.16 Gy, respectively, with correction. Conclusions: Inter-fraction correction for catheter movement using pre-treatment imaging is critical to maintain the quality of an implant. Without movement correction there is significant risk of tumour under-dosage and normal tissue over-dosage. The findings of this study justify additional imaging between fractions in order to carry out correction. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 93 (2009) 253-258