Advertisement

Dosimetric Comparison of Cesium-131 and Palladium-103 for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy

      Post-implant dosimetric evaluation has become an increasingly important means of measuring and documenting the quality of permanent prostate brachytherapy implants. A new radioisotope, Cesium-131 (Cs-131), has recently been added to the sources–Iodine-125 and Palladium-103–available for prostate brachytherapy. The physical properties of Cs-131, namely energy (30 keV) and half-life (10 days) differ somewhat from other available sources. The dosimetric implications of these differences in physical properties among all available isotopes have yet to be fully characterized. This study represents an attempt to quantify dosimetric outcomes using post-plan dosimetry data following Cs-131 and Palladium-103 (Pd-103) following therapeutic implantation.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.