Prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetry: Seed orientation and the impact of dosimetric anisotropy in stranded implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In postimplant dosimetry for prostate brachytherapy, dose is commonly calculated using the TG-43 1D formalism, because seed orientations are difficult to determine from CT images, the current standard for the procedure. However, the orientation of stranded seeds soon after implantation is predictable, as these seeds tend to maintain their relative spacing, and orient themselves along the implant trajectory. The aim of this study was to develop a method for determining seed orientations from reconstructed strand trajectories, and to use this information to investigate the dosimetric impact of applying the TG-43 2D formalism to clinical postimplant analysis. METHODS: Using in-house software, the preplan to postimplant seed correspondence was determined for a cohort of 30 patients during routine day-0 CT-based postimplant dosimetry. All patients were implanted with stranded-seed trains. Spline curves were fit to each set of seeds composing a strand, with the requirement that the distance along the spline between seeds be equal to the seed spacing within the strand. The orientations of the seeds were estimated by the tangents to the spline at each seed centroid. Dose distributions were then determined using the 1D and 2D TG-43 formalisms. These were compared using the TG-137 recommended dose metrics for the prostate, prostatic urethra, and rectum. RESULTS: Seven hundred and sixty one strands were analyzed in total. Defining the z-axis to be cranial-positive and the x-axis to be left-lateral positive in the CT coordinate system, the average seed had an inclination of 21° ± 10° and an azimuth of -81° ± 57°. These values correspond to the average strand rising anteriorly from apex to base, approximately parallel to the midsagittal plane. Clinically minor but statistically significant differences in dose metrics were noted. Compared to the 2D calculation, the 1D calculation underestimated prostate V100 by 1.1% and D90 by 2.3 Gy, while overestimating V150 and V200 by 1.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Urethral and rectal dose quantifiers tended to be underestimated by the 1D calculation. The most pronounced differences were in the urethral D30 and rectal D2cc, which rose by 3.8 and 1.9 Gy, respectively, using the 2D calculation. The total volume of the 100% isodose region as a percentage of the prostate volume was found to increase by 0.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Stranded seeds in the supine patient are not oriented in a uniformly random manner, nor are they aligned along the axis of the CT scanner. Instead, this study identified a consistent anterior pitch that is likely attributable to differences in patient pose between implant and CT imaging. The angle of the ultrasound probe with respect to the patient during implant may have also been a contributing factor. The dose metrics derived using the 1D formalism were found to be within 2%, on average, of those derived using the 2D formalism. For greater accuracy, 2D dosimetry can be pursued using the strand-fitting method described in this work. If a 1D representation is used, integrating over the empirically determined seed orientation density reported here may be more appropriate than assuming that seed inclinations are distributed uniformly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".