A multi-institutional pilot survey of anesthesia practices during proton radiation therapy

Anaesthesia for paediatric radiotherapy: A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy is currently used in approximately one-third of children with cancer. Treatments are typically received as weekday outpatient appointments over 3-6 weeks. The treatment is painless but requires a still, co-operative patient who can lie alone in set positions, facilitated by the use of immobilisation devices, for up to 1 h.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to identify relevant articles relating to radiotherapy treatment. Key search terms included: 'radiotherapy'; 'proton beam'; 'photon'; 'sedation'; 'anaesthesia'; and 'paediatric'. The abstracts of identified articles were assessed for relevance and their references reviewed for further relevant publications.

RESULTS

The requirement for anaesthesia is almost exclusively limited to younger children, who are committed to daily anaesthetics over the duration of their treatment course. Centres tend to adopt a primary anaesthetic technique of either general anaesthesia using a supraglottic airway device or deep sedation, with spontaneous ventilation maintained. A full variety of anaesthetic drugs has been used with insufficient evidence to support a standardised primary approach but an apparent global trend towards propofol by infusion for sedation. Children may become acutely unwell during their treatment course and systems for escalation of clinical care in this event are vital. Distance from the patient for staff radiation shielding, patient positioning for treatment delivery and the use of immobilisation devices may provide additional access challenges in the event of an emergency.

DISCUSSION

The requirement for anaesthesia for paediatric radiotherapy is typically confined to younger children. Patients may be unwell, with several specific considerations related to their cancer diagnosis and the impact of various treatments including surgery and chemotherapy, in addition to the radiotherapy. A multidisciplinary team approach to all aspects of care is imperative in this group of high-risk patients.

ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for the Performance of Proton Beam Therapy

Purpose

This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Radium Society (ARS). This practice parameter was developed to serve as a tool in the appropriate application of proton therapy in the care of cancer patients or other patients with conditions in which radiation therapy is indicated. It addresses clinical implementation of proton radiation therapy, including personnel qualifications, quality assurance (QA) standards, indications, and suggested documentation.

Materials and Methods

This practice parameter for the performance of proton beam radiation therapy was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters - Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS.

Results

The qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, such as the proton center Chief Medical Officer or Medical Director, Radiation Oncologist, Radiation Physicist, Dosimetrist and Therapist, are outlined, including the necessity for continuing medical education. Proton therapy standard clinical indications and methodologies of treatment management are outlined by disease site and treatment group (e.g. pediatrics) including documentation and the process of proton therapy workflow and equipment specifications. Additionally, this proton therapy practice parameter updates policies and procedures related to a quality assurance and performance improvement program (QAPI), patient education, infection control, and safety.

Conclusion

As proton therapy becomes more accessible to cancer patients, policies and procedures as outlined in this practice parameter will help ensure quality and safety programs are effectively implemented to optimize clinical care.

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.

Survey of Anesthesia, Sedation, and Non-sedation Practices for Children Undergoing Repetitive Cranial or Craniospinal Radiotherapy

Background

Children undergoing cranial or craniospinal radiotherapy may require over 30 treatments within a six-week period. Facilitating these many treatments with the patient under anesthesia presents a significant challenge, and the most preferred anesthetic methods remain unknown. The primary goal of this study was to determine the most preferred anesthetic methods and agents for children undergoing daily cranial or craniospinal radiotherapy.

Methods

An 83-item web-based survey was developed. An introductory email was sent to 505 physicians and child-life specialists with expertise in pediatric anesthesia and/or affiliated with pediatric radiation oncology departments.

Results

The response rate was 128/505 (25%) and included specialists from Africa (5, 4%), Asia (18, 14%), Australia/Oceania (5, 4%), Europe (45, 35%), North America (50, 39%), and South America (5, 4%). The 128 respondents included 91 anesthesiologists (71%), 20 physicians who were not anesthesiologists (16%), 14 child life/social education specialists (11%), one radiotherapist, one pediatric radiation nurse, and one non-specified medical professional (all = 2%). Of the 128 respondents, 95 (74%) used anesthesia or sedation to facilitate repetitive cranial or craniospinal radiotherapy. Overall, total intravenous anesthesia without intubation was preferred by 67 of 95 (71%) specialists during one or more forms of radiotherapy. During photon-based radiotherapy, total intravenous anesthesia without intubation was the preferred anesthetic method with the patient in the supine (57/84, 68%) and prone positions (25/40, 63%). Propofol was the most used anesthetic agent for both supine (73/84, 87%) and prone positions (38/40, 95%). For proton radiotherapy, total intravenous anesthesia without intubation was the most preferred anesthetic method for the supine (32/42, 76%) and prone treatment positions (11/18, 61%), and propofol was the most used anesthetic (supine: 40/43, 93%; prone: 16/18, 89%).

Conclusions

In this survey of 95 specialists responsible for anesthesia or sedation of children undergoing repetitive cranial or craniospinal radiotherapy, propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia without intubation was the preferred anesthetic technique.

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.

Outpatient Anesthesia Facilitates Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Early Stage Lung Cancer Patients With Advanced Cognitive Impairments

Purpose

To report on the use of outpatient anesthesia (OPA) facilitating delivery of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with severe cognitive impairments (CI) diagnosed with inoperable early stage lung cancer.

Methods and Materials

We surveyed our institutional review board-approved prospective lung SBRT data registry to document the feasibility of using anesthesia in CI patients and to determine their SBRT outcomes.

Results

From 2004 to 2018, 8 from a total 2084 patients were identified for this analysis. The median age at treatment was 68 years (range, 44-78). Most patients were female (62.5%). CI diagnoses included Alzheimer-related dementia (3 patients), chronic schizophrenia (3 patients), severe anxiety disorder (1 patient), and severe developmental disability (1 patient). The median tumor size was 3.4 cm (range, 1.1-10.5), and 7 patients (87.5 %) had central lesions. The median follow-up time was 22.5 months. The most common (50%) SBRT schedule used was 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Intravenous propofol (10 mg/mL) was used for OPA in all cases at the time of simulation and with daily treatments. OPA was well tolerated and all patients completed SBRT as prescribed. There was one grade 5 but no other grade 3 or higher SBRT-related toxicities. One patient died with local failure and one of distant failure.

Conclusions

OPA made lung SBRT feasible for patients with CIs. SBRT outcomes were in keeping with those reported in the literature. CI should not be considered a contraindication per se to SBRT delivery in patients otherwise appropriate for this modality.

Impact of Anesthetics, Analgesics, and Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in developed countries. Children and adolescents with cancer need surgical interventions (ie, biopsy or major surgery) to diagnose, treat, or palliate their malignancies. Surgery is a period of high vulnerability because it stimulates the release of inflammatory mediators, catecholamines, and angiogenesis activators, which coincides with a period of immunosuppression. Thus, during and after surgery, dormant tumors or micrometastasis (ie, minimal residual disease) can grow and become clinically relevant metastasis. Anesthetics (ie, volatile agents, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine) and analgesics (ie, opioids) may also contribute to the growth of minimal residual disease or disease progression. For instance, volatile anesthetics have been implicated in immunosuppression and direct stimulation of cancer cell survival and proliferation. Contrarily, propofol has shown in vitro anticancer effects. In addition, perioperative blood transfusions are not uncommon in children undergoing cancer surgery. In adults, an association between perioperative blood transfusions and cancer progression has been described for some malignancies. Transfusion-related immunomodulation is one of the mechanisms by which blood transfusions can promote cancer progression. Other mechanisms include inflammation and the infusion of growth factors. In the present review, we discuss different aspects of tumorigenesis, metastasis, angiogenesis, the immune system, and the current studies about the impact of anesthetics, analgesics, and perioperative blood transfusions on pediatric cancer progression.