1
|
Wilson JS, Main C, Thorp N, Taylor RE, Majothi S, Kearns PR, English M, Dandapani M, Phillips R, Wheatley K, Pizer B. The effectiveness and safety of proton beam radiation therapy in children and young adults with Central Nervous System (CNS) tumours: a systematic review. J Neurooncol 2024; 167:1-34. [PMID: 38294638 PMCID: PMC10978619 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04510-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Central nervous system (CNS) tumours account for around 25% of childhood neoplasms. With multi-modal therapy, 5-year survival is at around 75% in the UK. Conventional photon radiotherapy has made significant contributions to survival, but can be associated with long-term side effects. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) reduces the volume of irradiated tissue outside the tumour target volume which may potentially reduce toxicity. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of PBT and make recommendations for future research for this evolving treatment. METHODS A systematic review assessing the effects of PBT for treating CNS tumours in children/young adults was undertaken using methods recommended by Cochrane and reported using PRISMA guidelines. Any study design was included where clinical and toxicity outcomes were reported. Searches were to May 2021, with a narrative synthesis employed. RESULTS Thirty-one case series studies involving 1731 patients from 10 PBT centres were included. Eleven studies involved children with medulloblastoma / primitive neuroectodermal tumours (n = 712), five ependymoma (n = 398), four atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumour (n = 72), six craniopharyngioma (n = 272), three low-grade gliomas (n = 233), one germ cell tumours (n = 22) and one pineoblastoma (n = 22). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported with overall survival values ranging from 100 to 28% depending on the tumour type. Endocrine outcomes were the most frequently reported toxicity outcomes with quality of life the least reported. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights areas of uncertainty in this research area. A well-defined, well-funded research agenda is needed to best maximise the potential of PBT. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO-CRD42016036802.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jayne S Wilson
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Caroline Main
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Nicky Thorp
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK
- The Christie Hospital Foundation Trust Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Saimma Majothi
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Pamela R Kearns
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Martin English
- Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Madhumita Dandapani
- Children's Brain Tumour Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals' NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Robert Phillips
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, York, UK
| | - Keith Wheatley
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Barry Pizer
- Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
- University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Alelayan H, Huang H, Yang Y, Chen Y, Liao X. Psychometric validation of the simplified Chinese version of the therapy-related symptom checklist in children with cancer. J Pediatr Nurs 2022; 64:e32-e39. [PMID: 35101353 DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2022.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2021] [Revised: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 01/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To validate a simplified Chinese version of the therapy-related symptom checklist for children (TRSC-C) in children with cancer. METHODS Reliability was assessed by internal consistency and test-retest coefficients. Dimensionality and construct validity were clarified using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated between the TRSC-C and the PedsQL 3.0 cancer model (PedsQL 3.0) and the Lansky Play Performance Scale (LPPS) to test concurrent validity. A Student's t-test was used to compare the scores of the simplified Chinese version of the TRSC-C subscales by gender, age groups, and functional status to test sensitivity of the TRSC-C. RESULTS A sample of 170 children with cancer was recruited (11.27 ± 2.31 years). Cronbach's alpha (0.89) and interclass correlation coefficient (0.98) were acceptable. Seven factors with eigenvalues >1 explained 56.86% of the total variances. CFA demonstrated an acceptable model (CFI = 0.93, RMSE = 0.04). Concurrent validity was supported by moderate to high correlations between the TRSC-C and both the PedsQL 3.0 (r = -0.71) and LPPS (r = -0.43). The TRSC-C scores significantly differed by age groups and functional status (effect size 0.40-0.93), indicating adequate sensitivity. CONCLUSION The simplified Chinese version of the TRSC-C demonstrated acceptable reliability, validity, and sensitivity to support its use in clinical practice and future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hasan Alelayan
- Southern Medical University, Nanfang Hospital, Nursing Department of Zengcheng Branch, China; Southern Medical University, School of Nursing, China
| | - Haiying Huang
- Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Nursing Department, China
| | - Yiling Yang
- Southern Medical University, School of Nursing, China
| | - Yingying Chen
- Southern Medical University, Nanfang Hospital, Pediatric Department, China
| | - Xiaoyan Liao
- Southern Medical University, Nanfang Hospital, Nursing Department of Zengcheng Branch, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Maurer SH, Hinds PS, Reeve BB, Mack JW, McFatrich M, Lin L, Withycombe JS, Jacobs SS, Baker JN, Castellino SM, Freyer DR. Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2021; 127:3664-3670. [PMID: 34196962 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33740] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2021] [Revised: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Lansky Play-Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child-reported functioning have not been evaluated. METHODS Children aged 7 to 18 years who were receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers were recruited from 9 pediatric cancer centers. Caregivers and clinicians reported LPPS scores, and children completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric functioning and symptom measures before treatment (time 1 [T1]) and after treatment (time 2 [T2]). t tests and mixed-linear models were used to assess differences in caregiver and clinician LPPS scores; polyserial correlations quantified associations between PROMIS and LPPS scores. RESULTS Of 482 children, 281 had matched caregiver- and clinician-reported LPPS T1/T2 scores. Caregivers rated children significantly worse on the LPPS than clinicians at both T1 (mean, 73.3 vs 87.4; P < .01) and T2 (mean, 67.9 vs 83.1; P < .01). These differences were not related to a child's age (P = .89), diagnosis (P = .17), or sex (P = .64) or to the time point (P = .45). Small to moderate associations existed between caregiver- and clinician-reported LPPS ratings and child-reported PROMIS scores for mobility (caregiver T1/T2 r = 0.51/0.45; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = 0.40/0.35; P < .01), fatigue (caregiver T1/T2 r = -0.46/-0.37; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = -0.26/-0.27; P < .01), and pain interference (caregiver T1/T2 r = -0.32/-0.30; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = -0.17/-0.31; P < .01). Caregivers and clinicians assigned significantly lower LPPS scores at T2 (caregiver Δ = -5.37; P < .01; clinician Δ = -4.20; P < .01), whereas child-reported PROMIS scores were clinically stable. CONCLUSIONS Significant differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings of child performance were sustained over time; their associations with child reports were predominantly small to moderate. These data suggest that clinician-reported LPPS ratings by themselves are inadequate for determining clinical trial eligibility and should be supplemented by appropriate measures of a child's functional status reflecting the child and caregiver perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scott H Maurer
- UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Bryce B Reeve
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Jennifer W Mack
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Li Lin
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | | | - Justin N Baker
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | | | - David R Freyer
- Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.,Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liu SM, Brooks ED, Rubin ML, Grosshans DR, Frank SJ, McAleer MF, McGovern SL, Paulino AC, Woodhouse KD. Referral Patterns and Treatment Delays in Medulloblastoma: A Large Academic Proton Center Experience. Int J Part Ther 2020; 7:1-10. [PMID: 33604411 PMCID: PMC7886269 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00038.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2020] [Accepted: 08/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Patient travel time can cause treatment delays when providers and families decide to seek proton therapy. We examined whether travel distance or referral pattern (domestic versus international) affects time to radiation therapy and subsequent disease outcomes in patients with medulloblastoma at a large academic proton center. Patients and Methods Children with medulloblastoma treated at MD Anderson (MDA) with a protocol of proton beam therapy (PBT) between January 4, 2007, and June 25, 2014, were included in the analysis. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to study the association between time to start of radiation and distance. Classification- and regression-tree analyses were used to explore binary thresholds for continuous covariates (ie, distance). Failure-free survival was defined as the time interval between end of radiation and failure or death. Results 96 patients were included in the analysis: 17 were international (18%); 19 (20%) were from Houston, Texas; 21 were from other cities inside Texas (21%); and 39 (41%) were from other US states. The median time from surgery to start of radiation was not significantly different for international patients (median = 1.45 months) compared with US patients (median = 1.15 months; P = .13). However, time from surgery to start of radiation was significantly longer for patients residing > 1716 km (> 1066 miles) from MDA (median = 1.31 months) than for patients residing ≤ 1716 km (≤ 1066 miles) from MDA (median = 1.05 months; P = .01). This 1- to 2-week delay (median = 7.8 days) did not affect failure-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.34; P = .43). Conclusion We found that short delays in proton access can exist for patients traveling long distances to proton centers. However, in this study, treatment delays did not affect outcomes. This highlights the appropriateness of PBT in the face of travel coordination. Investment by proton centers in a rigorous intake process is justified to offer timely access to curative PBT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean M Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eric D Brooks
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - M Laura Rubin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - David R Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mary Frances McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Susan L McGovern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Arnold C Paulino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kristina D Woodhouse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.,Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|