Kinderanästhesie zur Protonenbestrahlung: Medizin fernab der Klinik

Inhalation anesthesia without any intravenous management for pediatric proton beam therapy

INTRODUCTION

Proton beam therapy is an oncological treatment, argued to be an appropriate tumor irradiation technique for childhood solid tumors. Due to its duration and the need for immobility, many children require anesthesia for proton therapy sessions. As not many centers in the world provide this therapy, there is little published research about pediatric anesthesia for these cases, and the available data suggest a preference for intravenous anesthesia or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. We conducted this study with the aim of describing and analyzing the inhalation anesthetic management of children undergoing proton therapy at our medical center, comparing our results with studies that have followed different anesthetic protocols.

METHODS

We reviewed two major databases (Web of Science and Scopus) to find papers that had addressed, to date, anesthesia for pediatric proton therapy. To describe our anesthetic management, we included all pediatric patients treated with proton therapy under anesthesia in our center between June 2020 and August 2021. The characteristics of the patients, their diagnoses, treatments, airway management, drugs administered, duration of induction, and recovery from anesthesia, and adverse effects where all recorded. All anesthesiologists followed a strict anesthetic protocol based only on inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane delivered via laryngeal mask airway.

RESULTS

Of the total of 1082 papers found in Web of Science and Scopus on pediatric proton therapy, 11 have addressed its anesthetic management, using intravenous or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia. Between June 2020 and August 2021, 31 children were anesthetized in our center to receive proton therapy under inhalational anesthesia (total number of sessions: 873). The mean anesthesia induction time was 4.1 min (SD = 0.7, 95% CI [3.9, 4.4]). The mean anesthesia recovery time was 13.8 min (SD = 4.1, 95% CI [12.3, 15.3]). The percentage of non-serious adverse effects was 0.7% (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [0.3, 1.5]). The percentage of serious adverse effects was 0.1% (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [0, 0.6]), without statistically significant difference with other published works with different anesthetic approaches.

CONCLUSION

Inhalation anesthesia without any intravenous management for pediatric proton therapy is, in our experience, an effective technique with a complication rate similar to other anesthetic approaches.

Age as a decisive factor in general anaesthesia use in paediatric proton beam therapy

Proton therapy for paediatric cancer patients is an effective treatment; however, young children have may have difficulties staying still during irradiation. This study investigated the indication of general anaesthesia in paediatric proton therapy. Background information and anaesthesia/treatment protocols were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of cancer patients under 15 years who underwent proton therapy at Southern TOHOKU General Hospital, Fukushima, Japan between April 2016 and December 2018. The anaesthesia and non-anaesthesia groups were compared to evaluate factors determining the need for general anaesthesia. Thirty-two patients who received 285 irradiations were analysed. The median age was 5 years old (range: 1–15), and 13 patients (40.6%) were female. Twelve (37.5%) patients received general anaesthesia. In the general anaesthesia group, airway management using a laryngeal mask was performed in 11 patients (91.6%). Patient age was significantly lower in the general anaesthesia group than in the non-anaesthetised group (p < 0.001). Considering all background factors, only age was strongly associated with anaesthesia in the univariate logistic regression model (odds ratio 0.55 [95% confidence interval 0.35–0.86]; P < 0.01). Thus, age is one of the most important factors determining the need for general anaesthesia during proton therapy in children.

Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Paediatric Neuroblastoma with Motion Mitigation Strategy for Moving Target Volumes

AIMS

More efforts are required to minimise late radiation side-effects for paediatric patients. Pencil beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBS-PT) allows increased sparing of normal tissues while maintaining conformality, but is prone to dose degradation from interplay effects due to respiratory motion. We report our clinical experience of motion mitigation with volumetric rescanning (vRSC) and outcomes of children with neuroblastoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients with high-risk (n = 16) and intermediate-risk (n = 3) neuroblastoma received PBS-PT. The median age at PBS-PT was 3.5 years (range 1.2-8.6) and the median PBS-PT dose was 21 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). Most children (89%) were treated under general anaesthesia. Seven patients (37%) underwent four-dimensional computed tomography for motion assessment and were treated with vRSC for motion mitigation.

RESULTS

The mean result of maximum organ motion was 2.7 mm (cranial-caudal), 1.2 mm (left-right), 1.0 mm (anterior-posterior). Four anaesthetised children (21%) showing <5 mm motion had four-dimensional dose calculations (4DDC) to guide the number of vRSC. The mean deterioration or improvement to the planning target volume covered by 95% of the prescribed dose compared with static three-dimensional plans were: 4DDC no vRSC, -0.6%; 2 vRSC, +0.3%; 4 vRSC, +0.3%; and 8 vRSC, +0.1%. With a median follow-up of 14.9 months (range 2.7-49.0) there were no local recurrences. The 2-year overall survival was 94% and distant progression-free survival was 76%. Acute grade 2-4 toxicity was 11%. During the limited follow-up time, no late toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The early outcomes of mainly high-risk patients with neuroblastoma treated with PBS-PT were excellent. With a subset of our cohort undergoing PBS-PT with vRSC we have shown that it is logistically feasible and safe. The clinical relevance of vRSC is debatable in anaesthetised children with small pre-PBS-PT motion of <5 mm.

Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Pediatric Parameningeal Rhabdomyosarcomas: Clinical Outcome of Patients Treated at the Paul Scherrer Institute

BACKGROUND

Parameningeal rhabdomyosarcomas (PM-RMSs) represent approximately 25% of all rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) cases. These tumors are associated with early recurrence and poor prognosis. This study assessed the clinical outcome and late toxicity of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT) in the treatment of children with PM-RMS.

PROCEDURES

Thirty-nine children with PM-RMS received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by PBS-PT at the Paul Scherrer Institute, with concomitant chemotherapy. The median age was 5.8 years (range, 1.2-16.1). Due to young age, 25 patients (64%) required general anesthesia during PT. The median time from the start of chemotherapy to PT was 13 weeks (range, 3-23 weeks). Median prescription dose was 54 Gy (relative biologic effectiveness, RBE).

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 41 months (range, 9-106 months), 10 patients failed. The actuarial 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 72% (95% CI, 67-94%) and the 5-year overall survival was 73% (95% CI, 69-96%). On univariate analysis, a delay in the initiation of PT (>13 weeks) was a significant detrimental factor for PFS. Three (8%) patients presented with grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity. The estimated actuarial 5-year toxicity ≥grade 3 free survival was 95% (95% CI, 94-96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data contribute to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of PT for pediatric patients with PM-RMS. These preliminary results are encouraging and in line with other combined proton-photon and photons series; observed toxicity was acceptable.

The administration of high-dose propofol sedation with manual and target-controlled infusion in children undergoing radiation therapy: a 7-year clinical investigation

Background

Radiation therapy requires the patient to remain immobile for a long time, which is challenging in children. This study therefore aimed to determine the adequate target concentration and dosage of propofol in target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manual infusion (MI) in children requiring sedation for proton radiation therapy. Our hypothesis is that the adequate dose of propofol sedation required for proton radiation therapy in pediatric patients was larger than that seen in previous studies.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of Korean children who received proton therapy under propofol sedation. The average target concentration at induction and during maintenance with TCI and the dose with MI were analyzed as primary outcomes.

Results

A total of 1296 procedures in 54 children were analyzed (TCI group, 26; MI group, 28). The median bolus dose of propofol in the MI group was 2.6 (2.2–3.0) mg/kg, while the pump speed was 17.0 (13.6–25.8) mg/kg/h. The median target concentration of propofol in the TCI group was 5.3 (4.4–5.7) mcg/mL at induction and 4.2 (3.1–5.1) mcg/mL during maintenance. There were no cases of life-threatening complications in either group over 7 years. There were six cases of transient desaturation, which were managed by using the jaw thrust maneuver.

Conclusions

Compared with those in previous studies, the target concentration of propofol with TCI and the propofol dose with MI required for adequate sedation in children undergoing proton radiation therapy were larger in the present study. Despite concerns regarding overdosage, the complications were managed well. However, safe and adequate sedation for proton radiation therapy remains a challenge. The development of monitoring tools to evaluate the depth of sedation is necessary to adjust the propofol dose and sedation level.