The purpose of this work is to evaluate the model 9011 iodine-125 ((125)I) in prostate implants by comparing dosimetric coverage provided by the 6711 vs 9011 source implants. Postimplant dosimetry was performed in 18 consecutively implanted patients with prostate cancer. Two were implanted with the 9011 source and 16 with the 6711 source. For purposes of comparison, each implant was then recalculated assuming use of the other source. The same commercially available planning system was used and the specific source data for both 6711 and 9011 products were entered. The results of these calculations are compared side by side in the terms of the isodose values covering 100% (D100) and 90% (D90) of prostate volume, and the percentages of volumes of prostate, bladder, rectum, and urethra covered by 200% (V200), 150% (V150), 100% (V100), 50% (V50), and 20% (V20) of the prescribed dose as well. The 6711 source data overestimate coverage by 6.4% (ranging from 4.9% to 6.9%; median 6.6%) at D100 and by 6.6% (ranging from 6.2% to 6.8%; median 6.6%) at D90 compared with actual 9011 data. Greater discrepancies of up to 67% are seen at higher dose levels: average reduction for V100 is 2.7% (ranging from 0.6% to 7.7%; median 2.3%), for V150 is 14.6% (ranging from 6.1% to 20.5%; median 15.3%), for V200 is 14.9% (ranging from 4.8% to 19.1%; median 16%); similarly seen in bladder, rectal, and urethral coverage. This work demonstrates a clear difference in dosimetric behavior between the 9011 and 6711 sources. Using the 6711 source data for 9011 source implants would create a pronounced error in dose calculation. This study provides evidence that the 9011 source can provide the same dosimetric quality as the 6711 source, if properly used; however, the 6711 source data should not be considered as a surrogate for the 9011 source implants.
Copyright © 2013 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.