A Monte Carlo study is carried out to quantify the effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for 103Pd and 125I prostate implants. Two idealized and two real prostate implants are considered. Full Monte Carlo simulation (FMCS) of implants (seeds are physically and simultaneously simulated) is compared with isotropic point-source dose-kernel superposition (PSKS) and line-source dose-kernel superposition (LSKS) methods. For clinical pre- and post-procedure implants, the dose to the different structures (prostate, rectum wall, and urethra) is calculated. The discretized volumes of these structures are reconstructed using transrectal ultrasound contours. Local dose differences (PSKS versus FMCS and LSKS versus FMCS) are investigated. The dose contributions from primary versus scattered photons are calculated separately. For 103Pd, the average absolute total dose difference between FMCS and PSKS can be as high as 7.4% for the idealized model and 6.1% for the clinical preprocedure implant. Similarly, the total dose difference is lower for the case of 125I: 4.4% for the idealized model and 4.6% for a clinical post-procedure implant. Average absolute dose differences between LSKS and FMCS are less significant for both seed models: 3 to 3.6% for the idealized models and 2.9 to 3.2% for the clinical plans. Dose differences between PSKS and FMCS are due to the absence of both seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation modeling in the PSKS approach. LSKS accounts for seed anisotropy but not for the interseed effect, leading to systematically overestimated dose values in comparison with the more accurate FMCS method. For both idealized and clinical implants the dose from scattered photons represent less than 1/3 of the total dose. For all studied cases, LSKS prostate DVHs overestimate D90 by 2 to 5% because of the missing interseed attenuation effect. PSKS and LSKS predictions of V150 and V2oo are overes-timated by up to 9% in comparison with the FMCS results. Finally, effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation must be viewed in the context of other significant sources of dose uncertainty, namely seed orientation, source misplacement, prostate morphological changes and tissue heterogeneity.