ACR-ABS-ASTRO Practice Parameter for Transperineal Permanent Brachytherapy of Prostate Cancer.
Journal
American journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1537-453X
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8207754
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
entrez:
19
5
2022
pubmed:
20
5
2022
medline:
24
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The American College of Radiology (ACR), American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have jointly developed the following practice parameter for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer is the interstitial implantation of low-dose rate radioactive seeds into the prostate gland for the purpose of treating localized prostate cancer. This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the Commission on Radiation Oncology, in collaboration with ABS and ASTRO. This practice parameter provides a framework for the appropriate use of low-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer either as monotherapy or as part of a treatment regimen combined with external-beam radiation therapy. The practice parameter defines the qualifications and responsibilities of all involved radiation oncology personnel, including the radiation oncologist, medical physicist, dosimetrist, radiation therapist, and nursing staff. Patient selection criteria and the utilization of supplemental therapies such as external-beam radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are discussed. The logistics of the implant procedure, postimplant dosimetry assessment, and best practices with regard to safety and quality control are presented. Adherence to established standards can help to ensure that permanent prostate brachytherapy is delivered in a safe and efficacious manner.
Sections du résumé
AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND
The American College of Radiology (ACR), American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) have jointly developed the following practice parameter for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer is the interstitial implantation of low-dose rate radioactive seeds into the prostate gland for the purpose of treating localized prostate cancer.
METHODS
This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the Commission on Radiation Oncology, in collaboration with ABS and ASTRO.
RESULTS
This practice parameter provides a framework for the appropriate use of low-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer either as monotherapy or as part of a treatment regimen combined with external-beam radiation therapy. The practice parameter defines the qualifications and responsibilities of all involved radiation oncology personnel, including the radiation oncologist, medical physicist, dosimetrist, radiation therapist, and nursing staff. Patient selection criteria and the utilization of supplemental therapies such as external-beam radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are discussed. The logistics of the implant procedure, postimplant dosimetry assessment, and best practices with regard to safety and quality control are presented.
CONCLUSIONS
Adherence to established standards can help to ensure that permanent prostate brachytherapy is delivered in a safe and efficacious manner.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35588224
doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000915
pii: 00000421-202206000-00003
doi:
Substances chimiques
Androgen Antagonists
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Practice Guideline
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
249-257Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
P.O. reports personal fees from Palette Life Sciences, outside the submitted work; W.S. reports personal fees from Carl Zeiss Meditech, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Varian, grants from University of Utah, other from NRG Oncology, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1708–1717.
Morris WJ, Tyldesley S, Rodda S, et al. Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98:275–285.
Spratt DE, Zumsteg ZS, Ghadjar P, et al. Comparison of high-dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT vs combined brachytherapy plus IMRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;114:360–367.
Sylvester JE, Grimm PD, Blasko JC, et al. 15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:57–64.
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:272–277.
Bittner N, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, et al. Treatment outcomes with permanent brachytherapy in high-risk prostate cancer patients stratified into prognostic categories. Brachytherapy. 2015;14:766–772.
Kishan AU, Cook RR, Ciezki JP, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost and disease progression and mortality in patients with Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer. JAMA. 2018;319:896–905.
Stock RG, Cahlon O, Cesaretti JA, et al. Combined modality treatment in the management of high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:1352–1359.
Taira AV, Merrick GS, Butler WM, et al. Time to failure after definitive therapy for prostate cancer: implications for importance of aggressive local treatment. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2013;5:215–221.
Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Pei X, et al. Comparison of tumor control and toxicity outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy and brachytherapy for patients with favorable risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2011;77:986–990.
American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM technical standard for the performance of high-dose-rate brachytherapy physics. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/HDR-BrachyTS.pdf?la=en . Accessed June 26, 2019.
American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM technical standard for the performance of low-dose-rate brachytherapy physics. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/LDR-BrachyTS.pdf?la=en . Accessed June 26, 2019.
Beyer DC, Thomas T, Hilbe J, et al. Relative influence of Gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy. 2003;2:77–84.
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:168–172.
D’Amico AV, Schultz D, Silver B, et al. The clinical utility of the percent of positive prostate biopsies in predicting biochemical outcome following external-beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:679–684.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW, et al. Relationship between percent positive biopsies and biochemical outcome after permanent interstitial brachytherapy for clinically organ-confined carcinoma of the prostate gland. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52:664–673.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf . Accessed March 10, 2014.
Marshall RA, Buckstein M, Stone NN, et al. Treatment outcomes and morbidity following definitive brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 20-year experience at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:38.e1–38.e7.
Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM, et al. 20 Gy versus 44 Gy of supplemental external beam radiotherapy with palladium-103 for patients with greater risk disease: results of a prospective randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:e449–e455.
Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Galbreath RW, et al. Is supplemental external beam radiation therapy necessary for patients with higher risk prostate cancer treated with 103Pd? Results of two prospective randomized trials. Brachytherapy. 2015;14:677–685.
Prestidge BR, Winter K, Sanda MG, et al. Initial report of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0232: a phase 3 study comparing combined external beam radiation and transperineal interstitial permanent brachytherapy with brachytherapy alone for select patients with intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96:S4.
Mahdavi SS, Spadinger IT, Salcudean SE, et al. Focal application of low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: a pilot study. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2017;9:197–208.
Stone NN, Potters L, Davis BJ, et al. Multicenter analysis of effect of high biologic effective dose on biochemical failure and survival outcomes in patients with Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:341–346.
Cosset JM, Flam T, Thiounn N, et al. Selecting patients for exclusive permanent implant prostate brachytherapy: the experience of the Paris Institut Curie/Cochin Hospital/Necker Hospital group on 809 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:1042–1048.
Frank SJ, Grimm PD, Sylvester JE, et al. Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States. Brachytherapy. 2007;6:2–8.
Liss AL, Abu-Isa EI, Jawad MS, et al. Combination therapy improves prostate cancer survival for patients with potentially lethal prostate cancer: the impact of Gleason pattern 5. Brachytherapy. 2015;14:502–510.
Ciezki JP, Weller M, Reddy CA, et al. A comparison between low-dose-rate brachytherapy with or without androgen deprivation, external beam radiation therapy with or without androgen deprivation, and radical prostatectomy with or without adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97:962–975.
Rodda S, Tyldesley S, Morris WJ, et al. ASCENDE-RT: an analysis of treatment-related morbidity for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost with a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98:286–295.
Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:103–106.
Bolla M, Descotes JL, Artignan X, et al. Adjuvant treatment to radiation: combined hormone therapy and external radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;100(suppl 2):44–47.
Horwitz EM, Bae K, Hanks GE, et al. Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2497–2504.
Keyes M, Merrick G, Frank SJ, et al. American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: use of androgen deprivation therapy with prostate brachytherapy—a systematic literature review. Brachytherapy. 2017;16:245–265.
Bittner N, Merrick GS, Wallner KE, et al. Whole-pelvis radiotherapy in combination with interstitial brachytherapy: does coverage of the pelvic lymph nodes improve treatment outcome in high-risk prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1078–1084.
Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M III, et al. An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:646–655.
Roach M III, DeSilvio M, Lawton C, et al. Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1904–1911.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause-specific or overall survival in high-risk prostate cancer managed with brachytherapy and supplemental external beam. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:34–40.
Langley SEM, Soares R, Uribe J, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes and toxicity in 597 men aged </=60 years at time of low-dose-rate brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;121:38–45.
Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Galbreath RW, et al. Biochemical and functional outcomes following brachytherapy with or without supplemental therapies in men < or = 50 years of age with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2008;31:539–544.
Winoker JS, Omidele OO, Stock RG, et al. Long-term oncological and functional outcomes support use of low-dose-rate brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation in young men (</=60 years) with localized prostate cancer. Brachytherapy. 2019;18:192–197.
Leibel SA, Fuks Z, Zelefsky MJ, et al. The effects of local and regional treatment on the metastatic outcome in prostatic carcinoma with pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28:7–16.
Okamoto K, Wada A, Kohno N. High biologically effective dose radiation therapy using brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2017;9:1–6.
Rusthoven CG, Carlson JA, Waxweiler TV, et al. The impact of definitive local therapy for lymph node-positive prostate cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:1064–1073.
Parker CC, James ND, Brawley CD, et al. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;392:2353–2366.
Hastak SM, Gammelgaard J, Holm HH. Transrectal ultrasonic volume determination of the prostate—a preoperative and postoperative study. J Urol. 1982;127:1115–1118.
Holm HH, Juul N, Pedersen JF, et al. Transperineal 125iodine seed implantation in prostatic cancer guided by transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol. 1983;130:283–286.
Narayana V, Roberson PL, Pu AT, et al. Impact of differences in ultrasound and computed tomography volumes on treatment planning of permanent prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:1181–1185.
Narayana V, Roberson PL, Winfield RJ, et al. Impact of ultrasound and computed tomography prostate volume registration on evaluation of permanent prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;39:341–346.
Nath R, Meigooni AS, Melillo A. Some treatment planning considerations for 103Pd and 125I permanent interstitial implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;22:1131–1138.
Roy JN, Wallner KE, Chiu-Tsao ST, et al. CT-based optimized planning for transperineal prostate implant with customized template. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:483–489.
Stock RG, Stone NN, Wesson MF, et al. A modified technique allowing interactive ultrasound-guided three-dimensional transperineal prostate implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32:219–225.
Venkatesan AM, Stafford RJ, Duran C, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for brachytherapists: anatomy and technique. Brachytherapy. 2017;16:679–687.
Merrell KW, Davis BJ, Goulet CC, et al. Reducing seed migration to near zero with stranded-seed implants: comparison of seed migration rates to the chest in 1000 permanent prostate brachytherapy patients undergoing implants with loose or stranded seeds. Brachytherapy. 2019;18:306–312.
Taggar AS, Charas T, Cohen GN, et al. Placement of an absorbable rectal hydrogel spacer in patients undergoing low-dose-rate brachytherapy with palladium-103. Brachytherapy. 2018;17:251–258.
Beaulieu L, Carlsson Tedgren A, Carrier JF, et al. Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. Med Phys. 2012;39:6208–6236.
Rivard MJ, Ballester F, Butler WM, et al. Erratum: “Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: Joint recommendations by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO” [Med. Phys. Vol 44 (9), e297-e338 (2017)]. Med Phys. 2018;45:971–974.
Rivard MJ, Butler WM, DeWerd LA, et al. Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report. Med Phys. 2007;34:2187–2205.
Beyer D, Nath R, Butler W, et al. American brachytherapy society recommendations for clinical implementation of NIST-1999 standards for (103)palladium brachytherapy. The clinical research committee of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:273–275.
Stock RG, Stone NN, Tabert A, et al. A dose-response study for I-125 prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:101–108.
Stone NN, Potters L, Davis BJ, et al. Customized dose prescription for permanent prostate brachytherapy: insights from a multicenter analysis of dosimetry outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:1472–1477.
Bice WS, Prestidge BR, Kurtzman SM, et al. Recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy with (131)Cs: a consensus report from the Cesium Advisory Group. Brachytherapy. 2008;7:290–296.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. Variability of prostate brachytherapy pre-implant dosimetry: a multi-institutional analysis. Brachytherapy. 2005;4:241–251.
Freedland SJ, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ, et al. Do younger men have better biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2004;63:518–522.
Butler WM, Stewart RR, Merrick GS. Evaluation of radiobiologic biochemical control in a large permanent prostate brachytherapy population from a single institution using AAPM TG-137 parameters. Brachytherapy. 2011;10:16–28.
Stock RG, Stone NN, Cesaretti JA, et al. Biologically effective dose values for prostate brachytherapy: effects on PSA failure and posttreatment biopsy results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:527–533.
Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al. I-125 versus Pd-103 for low-risk prostate cancer: morbidity outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Cancer J. 2002;8:67–73.
Benoit RM, Smith RP, Beriwal S. Five year prostate-specific antigen outcomes after caesium prostate brachytherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26:776–780.
Blanchard P, Pugh TJ, Swanson DA, et al. Patient-reported health-related quality of life for men treated with low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy with 125-iodine, 103-palladium, or 131-cesium: results of a prospective phase II study. Brachytherapy. 2018;17:265–276.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. Prophylactic versus therapeutic alpha-blockers after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Urology. 2002;60:650–655.
American College of Radiology. ACR–ASTRO practice parameter for communication: radiation oncology. Availabile at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/Communication-RO.pdf?la=en . Accessed June 26, 2019.
Dubois DF, Prestidge BR, Hotchkiss LA, et al. Source localization following permanent transperineal prostate interstitial brachytherapy using magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;39:1037–1041.
Moerland MA, Wijrdeman HK, Beersma R, et al. Evaluation of permanent I-125 prostate implants using radiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:927–933.
Frank SJ, Mourtada F, Crook J, et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy from diagnosis to treatment assessment: defining the knowledge gaps, technical challenges, and barriers to implementation. Brachytherapy. 2017;16:672–678.
Prestidge BR, Bice WS, Kiefer EJ, et al. Timing of computed tomography-based postimplant assessment following permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40:1111–1115.
Yue N, Dicker AP, Nath R, et al. The impact of edema on planning 125I and 103Pd prostate implants. Med Phys. 1999;26:763–767.
Davis BJ, Bresnahan JF, Stafford SL, et al. Prostate brachytherapy seed migration to a coronary artery found during angiography. J Urol. 2002;168:1103.
Orio PF III, Merrick GS, Grimm P, et al. Effects of the time interval between prostate brachytherapy and postimplant dosimetric evaluation in community practice: analysis of the Pro-Qura database. Am J Clin Oncol. 2008;31:523–531.
Taussky D, Yeung I, Williams T, et al. Rectal-wall dose dependence on postplan timing after permanent-seed prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:358–363.
Waterman FM, Yue N, Reisinger S, et al. Effect of edema on the post-implant dosimetry of an I-125 prostate implant: a case study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:335–339.
Nath R, Bice WS, Butler WM, et al. AAPM recommendations on dose prescription and reporting methods for permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: report of Task Group 137. Med Phys. 2009;36:5310–5322.
Yu Y, Anderson LL, Li Z, et al. Permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy: report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group No. 64. Med Phys. 1999;26:2054–2076.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al. Influence of timing on the dosimetric analysis of transperineal ultrasound-guided, prostatic conformal brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1998;6:182–190.
Willins J, Wallner K. Time-dependent changes in CT-based dosimetry of I-125 prostate brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Investig. 1998;6:157–160.
Roberson PL, McLaughlin PW, Narayana V, et al. Use and uncertainties of mutual information for computed tomography/ magnetic resonance (CT/MR) registration post permanent implant of the prostate. Med Phys. 2005;32:473–482.
Dubois DF, Prestidge BR, Hotchkiss LA, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiology. 1998;207:785–789.
Lee WR, Roach M III, Michalski J, et al. Interobserver variability leads to significant differences in quantifiers of prostate implant adequacy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:457–461.
Nag S. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: summary of American Brachytherapy Society recommendations. Semin Urol Oncol. 2000;18:133–136.
Nag S, Beyer D, Friedland J, et al. American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:789–799.
Nag S, Bice W, DeWyngaert K, et al. The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant dosimetric analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:221–230.
Davis BJ, Horwitz EM, Lee WR, et al. American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2012;11:6–19.
Davis BJ, Taira AV, Nguyen PL, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria: permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy. 2017;16:266–276.
Kollmeier MA, Stock RG, Stone N. Biochemical outcomes after prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: importance of patient selection and implant quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:645–653.
Lee WR, Bae K, Lawton CA, et al. A descriptive analysis of postimplant dosimetric parameters from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group P0019. Brachytherapy. 2006;5:239–243.
Potters L, Cao Y, Calugaru E, et al. A comprehensive review of CT-based dosimetry parameters and biochemical control in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:605–614.
Stock RG, Stone NN, DeWyngaert JK, et al. Prostate specific antigen findings and biopsy results following interactive ultrasound guided transperineal brachytherapy for early stage prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;77:2386–2392.
Zelefsky MJ, Kuban DA, Levy LB, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:327–333.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. The impact of radiation dose to the urethra on brachytherapy-related dysuria. Brachytherapy. 2005;4:45–50.
Sherertz T, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. Factors predictive of rectal bleeding after 103Pd and supplemental beam radiation for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy. 2004;3:130–135.
Tran A, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. Rectal fistulas after prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:150–154.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al. The importance of radiation doses to the penile bulb vs. crura in the development of postbrachytherapy erectile dysfunction. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:1055–1062.
Solan AN, Cesaretti JA, Stone NN, et al. There is no correlation between erectile dysfunction and dose to penile bulb and neurovascular bundles following real-time low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1468–1474.
Pfeiffer D, Sutlief S, Feng W, et al. AAPM Task Group 128: quality assurance tests for prostate brachytherapy ultrasound systems. Med Phys. 2008;35:5471–5489.
American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM technical standard for diagnostic medical physics performance monitoring of real time ultrasound equipment. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/US-Equip.pdf?la=en . Accessed June 26, 2019.
Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys. 1994;21:581–618.
Rivard MJ, Coursey BM, DeWerd LA, et al. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: a revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys. 2004;31:633–674.
Nath R, Anderson LL, Meli JA, et al. Code of practice for brachytherapy physics: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 56. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys. 1997;24:1557–1598.
Butler WM, Bice WS Jr, DeWerd LA, et al. Third-party brachytherapy source calibrations and physicist responsibilities: report of the AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Calibration Working Group. Med Phys. 2008;35:3860–3865.
American College of Radiology. ACR–ASTRO practice parameter for radiation oncology. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/RadOnc.pdf?la=en . Accessed June 26, 2019.
Kuban DA, Levy LB, Potters L, et al. Comparison of biochemical failure definitions for permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1487–1493.
Roach M III, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965–974.
Morris WJ, Pickles T, Keyes M. Using a surgical prostate-specific antigen threshold of >0.2 ng/mL to define biochemical failure for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with definitive radiation therapy in the ASCENDE-RT randomized control trial. Brachytherapy. 2018;17:837–844.
Bostancic C, Merrick GS, Butler WM, et al. Isotope and patient age predict for PSA spikes after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:1431–1437.
Cavanagh W, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et al. Transient elevation of serum prostate-specific antigen following (125)I/(103)Pd brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2000;18:160–165.
Critz FA, Williams WH, Benton JB, et al. Prostate specific antigen bounce after radioactive seed implantation followed by external beam radiation for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2000;163:1085–1089.