4.2 Article

A prospective randomized comparison of stranded vs. loose 125I seeds for prostate brachytherapy

Journal

BRACHYTHERAPY
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 129-134

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2007.01.003

Keywords

prostate; brachytherapy; dosimetry; seeds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare seed loss and dosimetric parameters between stranded and loose I-125 seeds (LS) for prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-four patients with 1997 American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) clinical stage T1c or T2a prostate carcinoma were prospectively randomized to brachytherapy (144 Gy) with RAPID Strand 1251 seeds (RS) vs. LS (Oncura, Plymouth Meeting, PA) The treatment plan for each patient was devised before randomization, and was not modified based on the randomization. Each patient underwent magnetic resonance, computed tomography, and plain film radiographs on the day of the implant (Day 0) and 30 days later (Day 30). RESULTS: Overall, 21 of 62 patients (30%) experienced seed loss. Seed loss occurred in 15 of 32 of LS patients (47%) vs. 6 of 30 RS patients (23%; p = 0.053). Mean seed loss was 1.09 in the LS patient vs. 0.43 in RS patients (p = 0.062). Eight LS patients (25%) lost multiple seeds, compared to 3 stranded patients (10%). Despite the lesser degree of seed loss in patients who received stranded seeds, they had a paradoxical trend toward lower V-100 and D-90 values. CONCLUSION: This prospective randomized trial showed a strong trend toward a decrease in postimplant seed loss with stranded seeds. Improved seed retention may be more advantageous in a setting of less generous periprostatic coverage. The lowered risk seed migration seen with stranded seeds would presumably also decrease the likelihood of lung or cardiac seed embolization. (C) 2007 American Brachytherapy Society. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available