1
|
Gritsch D, Santagata S, Brastianos PK. Integrating Systemic Therapies into the Multimodality Therapy of Patients with Craniopharyngioma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2024; 25:261-273. [PMID: 38300480 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-023-01156-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT The integration of targeted therapy into the multimodal management of craniopharyngiomas represents a significant advancement in the field of neuro-oncology. Historically, the management of these tumors has been challenging due to their proximity to vital brain structures, necessitating a delicate balance between tumor control and the preservation of neurological function. Traditional treatment modalities, such as surgical resection and radiation, while effective, carry their own set of risks, including potential damage to surrounding healthy tissues and the potential for long-term side effects. Recent insights into the molecular biology of craniopharyngiomas, particularly the discovery of the BRAF V600E mutation in nearly all papillary craniopharyngiomas, have paved the way for a targeted systemic treatment approach. However, advances have been limited for adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas. The success of BRAF/MEK inhibitors in clinical trials underscores the potential of these targeted therapies not only to control tumor growth but also to reduce the need for more invasive treatments, potentially minimizing treatment-related complications. However, the introduction of these novel therapies also brings forth new challenges, such as determining the optimal timing, sequencing, and duration of targeted treatments. Furthermore, there are open questions regarding which specific BRAF/MEK inhibitors to use, the potential need for combination therapy, and the strategies for managing intolerable adverse events. Finally, ensuring equitable access to these therapies, especially in healthcare systems with limited resources, is crucial to prevent widening healthcare disparities. In conclusion, targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors holds great promise for improving outcomes and quality of life for patients with BRAF-mutated craniopharyngiomas. However, additional research is needed to address the questions that remain about its optimal use and integration into comprehensive treatment plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Gritsch
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| | - Sandro Santagata
- Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
| | - Priscilla K Brastianos
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vennarini S, Colombo F, Mirandola A, Chiaravalli S, Orlandi E, Massimino M, Casanova M, Ferrari A. Clinical Insight on Proton Therapy for Paediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma. Cancer Manag Res 2023; 15:1125-1139. [PMID: 37842128 PMCID: PMC10576457 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s362664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
This paper offers an insight into the use of Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) in paediatric patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the literature, investigating comparative photon-proton dosimetry, outcome, and toxicity. In the complex and multimodal scenario of the treatment of RMS, clear evidence of the therapeutic superiority of PBT compared to other modern photon techniques has not yet been demonstrated; however, PBT can be considered an excellent treatment option, in particular for young children and patients with specific primary sites, such as the head and neck area (and especially the parameningeal regions), genito-urinary, pelvic, and paravertebral regions. The unique depth-dose characteristics of protons can be exploited to achieve significant reductions in normal tissue doses and may allow an escalation of tumour doses and greater sparing of normal tissues, thus potentially improving local control while at the same time reducing toxicity and improving quality of life. However, access of children with RMS (and more in general with solid tumors) to PBT remains a challenge, due to the limited number of available proton therapy installations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabina Vennarini
- Pediatric Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Colombo
- Pediatric Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology (DIPO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Alfredo Mirandola
- Medical Physics Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Stefano Chiaravalli
- Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Clinical Department, National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Maura Massimino
- Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Michela Casanova
- Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Andrea Ferrari
- Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Merchant TE, Hoehn ME, Khan RB, Sabin ND, Klimo P, Boop FA, Wu S, Li Y, Burghen EA, Jurbergs N, Sandler ES, Aldana PR, Indelicato DJ, Conklin HM. Proton therapy and limited surgery for paediatric and adolescent patients with craniopharyngioma (RT2CR): a single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:523-534. [PMID: 37084748 PMCID: PMC10408380 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00146-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 04/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Compared with photon therapy, proton therapy reduces exposure of normal brain tissue in patients with craniopharyngioma, which might reduce cognitive deficits associated with radiotherapy. Because there are known physical differences between the two methods of radiotherapy, we aimed to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival distributions for paediatric and adolescent patients with craniopharyngioma treated with limited surgery and proton therapy, while monitoring for excessive CNS toxicity. METHODS In this single-arm, phase 2 study, patients with craniopharyngioma at St Jude Children's Research Hospital (Memphis TN, USA) and University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute (Jacksonville, FL, USA) were recruited. Patients were eligible if they were aged 0-21 years at the time of enrolment and had not been treated with previous radiotherapeutic or intracystic therapies. Eligible patients were treated using passively scattered proton beams, 54 Gy (relative biological effect), and a 0·5 cm clinical target volume margin. Surgical treatment was individualised before proton therapy and included no surgery, single procedures with catheter and Ommaya reservoir placement through a burr hole or craniotomy, endoscopic resection, trans-sphenoidal resection, craniotomy, or multiple procedure types. After completing treatment, patients were evaluated clinically and by neuroimaging for tumour progression and evidence of necrosis, vasculopathy, permanent neurological deficits, vision loss, and endocrinopathy. Neurocognitive tests were administered at baseline and once a year for 5 years. Outcomes were compared with a historical cohort treated with surgery and photon therapy. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Progression was defined as an increase in tumour dimensions on successive imaging evaluations more than 2 years after treatment. Survival and safety were also assessed in all patients who received photon therapy and limited surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01419067. FINDINGS Between Aug 22, 2011, and Jan 19, 2016, 94 patients were enrolled and treated with surgery and proton therapy, of whom 49 (52%) were female, 45 (48%) were male, 62 (66%) were White, 16 (17%) were Black, two (2%) were Asian, and 14 (15%) were other races, and median age was 9·39 years (IQR 6·39-13·38) at the time of radiotherapy. As of data cutoff (Feb 2, 2022), median follow-up was 7·52 years (IQR 6·28-8·53) for patients who did not have progression and 7·62 years (IQR 6·48-8·54) for the full cohort of 94 patients. 3-year progression-free survival was 96·8% (95% CI 90·4-99·0; p=0·89), with progression occurring in three of 94 patients. No deaths occurred at 3 years, such that overall survival was 100%. At 5 years, necrosis had occurred in two (2%) of 94 patients, severe vasculopathy in four (4%), and permanent neurological conditions in three (3%); decline in vision from normal to abnormal occurred in four (7%) of 54 patients with normal vision at baseline. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were headache (six [6%] of 94 patients), seizure (five [5%]), and vascular disorders (six [6%]). No deaths occurred as of data cutoff. INTERPRETATION Proton therapy did not improve survival outcomes in paediatric and adolescent patients with craniopharyngioma compared with a historical cohort, and severe complication rates were similar. However, cognitive outcomes with proton therapy were improved over photon therapy. Children and adolescents treated for craniopharyngioma using limited surgery and post-operative proton therapy have a high rate of tumour control and low rate of severe complications. The outcomes achieved with this treatment represent a new benchmark to which other regimens can be compared. FUNDING American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, American Cancer Society, the US National Cancer Institute, and Research to Prevent Blindness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas E Merchant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
| | - Mary Ellen Hoehn
- Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Raja B Khan
- Department of Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Noah D Sabin
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Paul Klimo
- Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Frederick A Boop
- Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Shengjie Wu
- Department of Biostatistics, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Yimei Li
- Department of Biostatistics, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Burghen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Niki Jurbergs
- Department of Psychology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | | | - Philipp R Aldana
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Heather M Conklin
- Department of Psychology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Beijer JGM, Teepen JC, Streefkerk N, Heijnen RM, Janssens GO, Kremer LCM, van Dalen EC, Ronckers CM. Late Toxicity After 3-Dimensional External Beam Radiotherapy Among Children With Cancer: A Systematic Review. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2022; 44:117-134. [PMID: 35398857 DOI: 10.1097/mph.0000000000002445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Radiotherapy has evolved from 2-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2D-RT) to 3-dimensional planned radiotherapy (3D-RT). Because 3D-RT improves conformity, an altered late health outcomes risk profile is anticipated. Here, we systematically reviewed the current literature on late toxicity after 3D-RT in children treated for cancer. PubMed was searched for studies describing late toxicity after 3D-RT for childhood cancer (below 21 y). Late toxicity was defined as somatic health outcomes occurring ≥90 days after treatment. We identified 13 eligible studies, describing most frequently head/neck area tumors. Included studies reported on crude frequencies of late toxicities including subsequent tumors and conditions of organ systems. Three studies offered a global assessment of the full spectrum of late toxicity; one study compared toxicities after 2D-RT and 3D-RT. Incidence rates were typically not provided. Heterogeneity in study characteristics, small study sizes and short follow-up times precluded multivariable modeling and pooling of data. In conclusion, among the first pediatric cohorts treated with 3D-RT, a broad variety of late toxicity is reported; precise estimates of incidence, and contributions of risk factors are unclear. Continued systematic evaluation of well-defined health outcomes in survivors treated with 3D-RT, including proton therapy, is needed to optimize evidence-based care for children with cancer and survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Geert O Janssens
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht
| | - Leontien C M Kremer
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology
- Department of Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Cécile M Ronckers
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology
- Brandenburg Medical School, Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Neuruppin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ingley KM, Maleddu A, Grange FL, Gerrand C, Bleyer A, Yasmin E, Whelan J, Strauss SJ. Current approaches to management of bone sarcoma in adolescent and young adult patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2022; 69:e29442. [PMID: 34767314 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.29442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2021] [Revised: 10/02/2021] [Accepted: 10/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Bone tumors are a group of histologically diverse diseases that occur across all ages. Two of the commonest, osteosarcoma (OS) and Ewing sarcoma (ES), are regarded as characteristic adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers with an incidence peak in AYAs. They are curable for some but associated with unacceptably high rates of treatment failure and morbidity. The introduction of effective new therapeutics for bone sarcomas is slow, and to date, complex biology has been insufficiently characterized to allow more rapid therapeutic exploitation. This review focuses on current standards of care, recent advances that have or may soon change that standard of care and challenges to the expert clinical research community that we suggest must be met.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katrina M Ingley
- London Sarcoma Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Alessandra Maleddu
- London Sarcoma Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Franel Le Grange
- London Sarcoma Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Craig Gerrand
- London Sarcoma Service, Department of Orthopaedic Oncology, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK
| | - Archie Bleyer
- Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Ephia Yasmin
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Jeremy Whelan
- London Sarcoma Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Sandra J Strauss
- London Sarcoma Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.,UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
J F, A S, V E, F P, P M, B T, Sw W. New aspects and innovations in the local treatment of renal and urogenital pediatric tumors. Semin Pediatr Surg 2021; 30:151081. [PMID: 34412882 DOI: 10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2021.151081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Local treatment plays a key role for patients' outcome in tumors of the urogenital tract in children. Despite a great variety of different etiologies, the specific localization of pediatric urogenital tumors renders several characteristic demands to the treating personnel. Surgery and radiotherapy are the main elements of local treatment in this group of neoplasms. Numerous new guidelines and innovative technical developments of surgery and radiotherapy have recently been integrated into treatment concepts for pediatric urogenital tumors. Due to the broadness of the field it is not possible to give a full overview over all aspects. Therefore, this article highlights the most important innovations and new guidelines of surgery and radiotherapy of pediatric urogenital tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fuchs J
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology, University Children´s Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
| | - Schmidt A
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology, University Children´s Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Ellerkamp V
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology, University Children´s Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Paulsen F
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Melchior P
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Homburg, Germany
| | - Timmermann B
- Department of Particle Therapy, West German Proton Therapy Centre, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Warmann Sw
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology, University Children´s Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Shahmohammadi Beni M, Krstic D, Nikezic D, Yu KN. A comparative study on dispersed doses during photon and proton radiation therapy in pediatric applications. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0248300. [PMID: 33690664 PMCID: PMC7946309 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2020] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The Monte Carlo method was employed to simulate realistic treatment situations for photon and proton radiation therapy for a set of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) pediatric phantoms for 15, 10, 5 and 1-year olds as well as newborns. Complete radiotherapy situations were simulated using the previously developed NRUrad input code for Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) code package. Each pediatric phantom was irradiated at five different positions, namely, the testes, colon, liver, left lung and brain, and the doses in targeted organs (Dt) were determined using the track length estimate of energy. The dispersed photon and proton doses in non-targeted organs (Dd), namely, the skeleton, skin, brain, spine, left and right lungs were computed. The conversion coefficients (F = Dd/Dt) of the dispersed doses were used to study the dose dispersion in different non-targeted organs for phantoms for 15, 10, 5 and 1-year olds as well as newborns. In general, the F values were larger for younger patients. The F values for non-targeted organs for phantoms for 1-year olds and newborns were significantly larger compared to those for other phantoms. The dispersed doses from proton radiation therapy were also found to be significantly lower than those from conventional photon radiation therapy. For example, the largest F values for the brain were 65.6% and 0.206% of the dose delivered to the left lung (P4) for newborns during photon and proton radiation therapy, respectively. The present results demonstrated that dispersion of photons and generated electrons significantly affected the absorbed doses in non-targeted organs during pediatric photon therapy, and illustrated that proton therapy could in general bring benefits for treatment of pediatric cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Dragana Krstic
- Faculty of Science, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia
| | - Dragoslav Nikezic
- Department of Physics, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
- Faculty of Science, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia
| | - Kwan Ngok Yu
- Department of Physics, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Carabe A, Karagounis IV, Huynh K, Bertolet A, François N, Kim MM, Maity A, Abel E, Dale R. Radiobiological effectiveness difference of proton arc beams versus conventional proton and photon beams. Phys Med Biol 2020; 65:165002. [PMID: 32413889 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
This paper aims to demonstrate the difference in biological effectiveness of proton monoenergetic arc therapy (PMAT) compared to intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and conventional 6 MV photon therapy, and to quantify this difference when exposing cells of different radiosensitivity to the same experimental conditions for each modality. V79, H1299 and H460 cells were cultured in petri dishes placed in the central axis of a cylindrical and homogeneous solid water phantom of 20 cm in diameter. For the PMAT plan, cells were exposed to 13 mono-energetic proton beams separated every 15° over a 180° arc, designed to deliver a uniform dose of higher LET to the petri dishes. For the IMPT plans, 3 fields were used, where each field was modulated to cover the full target. Cells were also exposed to 6 MV photon beams in petri dishes to characterize their radiosensitivity. The relative biological effectiveness of the PMAT plans compared with those of IMPT was measured using clonogenic assays. Similarly, in order to study the quantity and quality of the DNA damage induced by the PMAT plans compared to that of IMPT and photons, γ-H2AX assays were conducted to study the relative amount of DNA damage induced by each modality, and their repair rate over time. The clonogenic assay revealed similar survival levels to the same dose delivered with IMPT or x-rays. However, a systematic average of up to a 43% increase in effectiveness in PMAT plans was observed when compared with IMPT. In addition, the repair kinetic assays proved that PMAT induces larger and more complex DNA damage (evidenced by a slower repair rate and a larger proportion of unrepaired DNA damage) than IMPT. The repair kinetics of IMPT and 6 MV photon therapy were similar. Mono-energetic arc beams offer the possibility of taking advantage of the enhanced LET of proton beams to increase TCP. This study presents initial results based on exposing cells with different radiosensitivity to other modalities under the same experimental conditions, but more extensive clonogenic and in-vivo studies will be required to confirm the validity of these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandro Carabe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, PA, United States of America. Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
H-Yazdi N, Meadows R. Child Proton Beam Therapy: A qualitative study of parental views on treatment and information sources. Radiography (Lond) 2020; 27:101-107. [PMID: 32669230 DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.06.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Revised: 06/03/2020] [Accepted: 06/19/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) is often described as an advanced mode of radiotherapy. Whilst PBT offers an equivalent chance of cure to conventional radiotherapy, it is said to offer a theoretical reduction in long term side effects. NHS patients have had access to PBT since 2008 and approximately 65% of the 1144 approved referrals have been for paediatric cases. Yet, there is little research on how parents in these paediatric cases perceive their child's PBT and the information sources they encounter. METHODS This is a qualitative inquiry informed by in-depth interviews carried out with 27 parents of children treated with PBT. RESULTS Parents primarily frame PBT as a form of radiation but one which is better than alternatives. Whilst medical professionals do play a role, wider sources of information - such as other families and the internet - are important to both initial decision-making and treatment/recovery experiences. CONCLUSION Parents are faced with the challenge of a 'fragmented expertise' which comes with the 'novelty' of the radiation therapy, the 'rare' nature of the tumours and the remote location of clinical specialists. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE This article will prove useful for practitioners dealing with parents and care givers of children undergoing proton therapy, and is especially valuable and timely for practitioners based in the newly installed proton centres in the UK. Two high energy proton centres are expected to become fully operational in the UK by the end of 2020. Understanding parents' experiences and perspectives can help avoid undue anxiety and lead to service improvements and overall satisfaction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N H-Yazdi
- Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
| | - R Meadows
- Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Research progress on mechanism and dosimetry of brainstem injury induced by intensity-modulated radiotherapy, proton therapy, and heavy ion radiotherapy. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:5011-5020. [PMID: 32318844 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06843-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 03/11/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) is an effective method for treating head and neck cancer (HNC). However, RT may cause side effects during and after treatment. Radiation-induced brainstem injury (BSI) is often neglected due to its low incidence and short survival time and because it is indistinguishable from intracranial tumor progression. It is currently believed that the possible mechanism of radiation-induced BSI includes increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and damage of vascular endothelial cells, neurons, and glial cells as well as an inflammatory response and oxidative stress. At present, it is still difficult to avoid BSI even with several advanced RT techniques. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is the most commonly used therapeutic technique in the field of RT. Compared with early conformal therapy, it has greatly reduced the injury to normal tissues. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) and heavy ion radiotherapy (HIT) have good dose distribution due to the presence of a Bragg peak, which not only results in better control of the tumor but also minimizes the dose to the surrounding normal tissues. There are many clinical studies on BSI caused by IMRT, PBT, and HIT. In this paper, we review the mechanism, dosimetry, and other aspects of BSI caused by IMRT, PBT, and HIT.Key Points• Enhanced MRI imaging can better detect radiation-induced BSI early.• This article summarized the dose constraints of brainstem toxicity in clinical studies using different techniques including IMRT, PBT, and HIT and recommended better dose constraints pattern to clinicians.• The latest pathological mechanism of radiation-induced BSI and the corresponding advanced treatment methods will be discussed.
Collapse
|
11
|
Ryan J, Willis D. Paediatric image-guided radiation therapy: determining and evaluating appropriate kilovoltage planar exposure factors for the Varian on-board imager. J Med Radiat Sci 2020; 67:16-24. [PMID: 31478607 PMCID: PMC7063249 DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2019] [Revised: 05/26/2019] [Accepted: 07/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Kilovoltage (kV) orthogonal imaging is commonly used for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) in paediatrics. Paediatrics have an increased sensitivity to radiation. Exposure factors need to be optimised so that imaging dose is kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). METHODS A table of low-dose IGRT radiographic exposure factors for paediatric IGRT was determined through a phantom study. Four anatomical sites, head and neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, were investigated. The table was evaluated against standard manufacturer pre-sets. Dose was evaluated in terms of system-reported entrance surface air kerma (ESAK). Qualified participants volunteered to perform offline image matching in a further phantom study, recording misalignments detected and providing subjective assessments of image quality using an electronic survey tool. A statistical comparison of matching accuracy was conducted. RESULTS Twelve radiation therapists or radiation oncologists completed the image matching task and survey. The low-dose exposure table reduced imaging dose by 20-94% compared to manufacturer pre-sets. No significant difference was observed in the accuracy of image matching (head and neck P = 0.82, thorax P = 0.15, abdomen P = 0.33, pelvis P = 0.59). Participant image exposure preference was largely equivocal. CONCLUSIONS Optimising radiographic exposures in paediatric IGRT is feasible, logical and therefore reasonably achievable. Implementation of the low-dose exposure table presented in this study should be considered by paediatric radiotherapy departments wishing to image gently without compromising the potential to detect set up errors. Further study using a contrast detail phantom and contrast to noise image analysis software is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Ryan
- School of Health and Biomedical SciencesRMIT UniversityBundooraVictoriaAustralia
| | - David Willis
- Radiation Therapy DepartmentSunshine Coast University HospitalBirtinyaQueenslandAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Greenberger BA, Yock TI. The role of proton therapy in pediatric malignancies: Recent advances and future directions. Semin Oncol 2020; 47:8-22. [PMID: 32139101 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Revised: 02/03/2020] [Accepted: 02/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy has promised an advantage in safely treating pediatric malignancies with an increased capability to spare normal tissues, reducing the risk of both acute and late toxicity. The past decade has seen the proliferation of more than 30 proton facilities in the United States, with increased capacity to provide access to approximately 3,000 children per year who will require radiotherapy for their disease. We provide a review of the initial efforts to describe outcomes after proton therapy across the common pediatric disease sites. We discuss the main attempts to assess comparative efficacy between proton and photon radiotherapy concerning toxicity. We also discuss recent efforts of multi-institutional registries aimed at accelerating research to better define the optimal treatment paradigm for children requiring radiotherapy for cure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin A Greenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Torunn I Yock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Francis H. Burr Proton Therapy Center, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sardaro A, Carbonara R, Petruzzelli MF, Turi B, Moschetta M, Scardapane A, Stabile Ianora AA. Proton therapy in the most common pediatric non-central nervous system malignancies: an overview of clinical and dosimetric outcomes. Ital J Pediatr 2019; 45:170. [PMID: 31881905 PMCID: PMC6935184 DOI: 10.1186/s13052-019-0763-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2019] [Accepted: 12/17/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiation therapy represents an important approach in the therapeutic management of children and adolescents with malignant tumors and its application with modern techniques – including Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) – is of great interest. In particular, potential radiation-induced injuries and secondary malignancies – also associated to the prolonged life expectancy of patients – are still questions of concern that increase the debate on the usefulness of PBT in pediatric treatments. This paper presents a literary review of current applications of PBT in non-Central Nervous System pediatric tumors (such as retinoblastoma, Hodgkin Lymphoma, Wilms tumor, bone and soft tissues sarcomas). We specifically reported clinical results achieved with PBT and dosimetric comparisons between PBT and the most common photon-therapy techniques. The analysis emphasizes that PBT minimizes radiation doses to healthy growing organs, suggesting for reduced risks of late side-effects and radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Extended follow up and confirms by prospective clinical trials should support the effectiveness and long-term tolerance of PBT in the considered setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Sardaro
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy
| | - Roberta Carbonara
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy.
| | - Maria Fonte Petruzzelli
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy
| | - Barbara Turi
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy
| | - Marco Moschetta
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy
| | - Arnaldo Scardapane
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy
| | - Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari, p.zza Giulio Cesare nr.11, 70124, Bari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Sánchez‐Parcerisa D, López‐Aguirre M, Dolcet Llerena A, Udías JM. MultiRBE: Treatment planning for protons with selective radiobiological effectiveness. Med Phys 2019; 46:4276-4284. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 06/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Sánchez‐Parcerisa
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| | - Miguel López‐Aguirre
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| | | | - José Manuel Udías
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Todorova PK, Fletcher-Sananikone E, Mukherjee B, Kollipara R, Vemireddy V, Xie XJ, Guida PM, Story MD, Hatanpaa K, Habib AA, Kittler R, Bachoo R, Hromas R, Floyd JR, Burma S. Radiation-Induced DNA Damage Cooperates with Heterozygosity of TP53 and PTEN to Generate High-Grade Gliomas. Cancer Res 2019; 79:3749-3761. [PMID: 31088835 PMCID: PMC6635038 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-19-0680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2019] [Revised: 04/08/2019] [Accepted: 05/10/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Glioblastomas are lethal brain tumors that are treated with conventional radiation (X-rays and gamma rays) or particle radiation (protons and carbon ions). Paradoxically, radiation is also a risk factor for GBM development, raising the possibility that radiotherapy of brain tumors could promote tumor recurrence or trigger secondary gliomas. In this study, we determined whether tumor suppressor losses commonly displayed by patients with GBM confer susceptibility to radiation-induced glioma. Mice with Nestin-Cre-driven deletions of Trp53 and Pten alleles were intracranially irradiated with X-rays or charged particles of increasing atomic number and linear energy transfer (LET). Mice with loss of one allele each of Trp53 and Pten did not develop spontaneous gliomas, but were highly susceptible to radiation-induced gliomagenesis. Tumor development frequency after exposure to high-LET particle radiation was significantly higher compared with X-rays, in accordance with the irreparability of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) induced by high-LET radiation. All resultant gliomas, regardless of radiation quality, presented histopathologic features of grade IV lesions and harbored populations of cancer stem-like cells with tumor-propagating properties. Furthermore, all tumors displayed concomitant loss of heterozygosity of Trp53 and Pten along with frequent amplification of the Met receptor tyrosine kinase, which conferred a stem cell phenotype to tumor cells. Our results demonstrate that radiation-induced DSBs cooperate with preexisting tumor suppressor losses to generate high-grade gliomas. Moreover, our mouse model can be used for studies on radiation-induced development of GBM and therapeutic strategies. SIGNIFICANCE: This study uncovers mechanisms by which ionizing radiation, especially particle radiation, promote GBM development or recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pavlina K Todorova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | | | - Bipasha Mukherjee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Rahul Kollipara
- Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Vamsidhara Vemireddy
- Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Xian-Jin Xie
- College of Dentistry and College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
| | - Peter M Guida
- Biology Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York
| | - Michael D Story
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Kimmo Hatanpaa
- Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Amyn A Habib
- Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
- Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System, Dallas, Texas
| | - Ralf Kittler
- Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Robert Bachoo
- Department of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Robert Hromas
- Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, Texas
| | - John R Floyd
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, Texas
| | - Sandeep Burma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Haas-Kogan D, Indelicato D, Paganetti H, Esiashvili N, Mahajan A, Yock T, Flampouri S, MacDonald S, Fouladi M, Stephen K, Kalapurakal J, Terezakis S, Kooy H, Grosshans D, Makrigiorgos M, Mishra K, Poussaint TY, Cohen K, Fitzgerald T, Gondi V, Liu A, Michalski J, Mirkovic D, Mohan R, Perkins S, Wong K, Vikram B, Buchsbaum J, Kun L. National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children: Considerations Regarding Brainstem Injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 101:152-168. [PMID: 29619963 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 98] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2017] [Revised: 12/21/2017] [Accepted: 01/01/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy can allow for superior avoidance of normal tissues. A widespread consensus has been reached that proton therapy should be used for patients with curable pediatric brain tumor to avoid critical central nervous system structures. Brainstem necrosis is a potentially devastating, but rare, complication of radiation. Recent reports of brainstem necrosis after proton therapy have raised concerns over the potential biological differences among radiation modalities. We have summarized findings from the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children convened in May 2016 to examine brainstem injury. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven physicians, physicists, and researchers from 17 institutions with expertise met to discuss this issue. The definition of brainstem injury, imaging of this entity, clinical experience with photons and photons, and potential biological differences among these radiation modalities were thoroughly discussed and reviewed. The 3 largest US pediatric proton therapy centers collectively summarized the incidence of symptomatic brainstem injury and physics details (planning, dosimetry, delivery) for 671 children with focal posterior fossa tumors treated with protons from 2006 to 2016. RESULTS The average rate of symptomatic brainstem toxicity from the 3 largest US pediatric proton centers was 2.38%. The actuarial rate of grade ≥2 brainstem toxicity was successfully reduced from 12.7% to 0% at 1 center after adopting modified radiation guidelines. Guidelines for treatment planning and current consensus brainstem constraints for proton therapy are presented. The current knowledge regarding linear energy transfer (LET) and its relationship to relative biological effectiveness (RBE) are defined. We review the current state of LET-based planning. CONCLUSIONS Brainstem injury is a rare complication of radiation therapy for both photons and protons. Substantial dosimetric data have been collected for brainstem injury after proton therapy, and established guidelines to allow for safe delivery of proton radiation have been defined. Increased capability exists to incorporate LET optimization; however, further research is needed to fully explore the capabilities of LET- and RBE-based planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daphne Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Natia Esiashvili
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Torunn Yock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Shannon MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Maryam Fouladi
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Kry Stephen
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - John Kalapurakal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Stephanie Terezakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hanne Kooy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mike Makrigiorgos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kavita Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Tina Young Poussaint
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kenneth Cohen
- Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Thomas Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Vinai Gondi
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Arthur Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Dragan Mirkovic
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Stephanie Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kenneth Wong
- Children's Hospital of Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angles, California
| | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Jeff Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Larry Kun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Steinmeier T, Schulze Schleithoff S, Timmermann B. Evolving Radiotherapy Techniques in Paediatric Oncology. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2019; 31:142-150. [PMID: 30639254 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2018.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2018] [Revised: 12/06/2018] [Accepted: 12/06/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Childhood cancer is rare and survival of childhood cancer has increased up to 80% at 5 years after diagnosis. Radiotherapy is an important element of the multimodal treatment concept. However, due to growing tissue, children are particularly sensitive to radiation-related side-effects and the induction of secondary malignancies. However, radiotherapy techniques have continuously progressed. In addition, modern treatment concepts have been improved in order to minimise long-term effects. Today, radiotherapy is used for various tumour types in childhood, such as sarcomas and tumours of the central nervous system. MATERIALS AND METHODS External beam therapy with either photons or protons and brachytherapy are predominantly used for the treatment of childhood tumours. Technical developments and features, as well as clinical outcomes, for several tumour entities are presented. RESULTS The development of radiotherapy techniques, as well as risk-adapted therapy concepts, resulted in promising outcome regarding tumour control, survival and therapy-related side-effects. It is assumed that proton therapy will be increasingly used for treating children in the future. However, more data have to be collected through multi-institutional registries in order to strengthen the evidence. CONCLUSION The development of radiotherapy techniques is beneficial for children in terms of reducing dose exposure. As compared with other modern and highly conformal techniques, particularly proton therapy may achieve high survival rates and tumour control rates while decreasing the risk for side-effects. However, clinical evidence for modern radiotherapy techniques is still limited today. An optimal patient triaging with the selection of the most appropriate radiation technique for each individual patient will be an important goal for the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Steinmeier
- Clinic for Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; West German Proton Therapy Center Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Essen, Germany
| | - S Schulze Schleithoff
- Clinic for Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; West German Proton Therapy Center Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Essen, Germany
| | - B Timmermann
- Clinic for Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; West German Proton Therapy Center Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; West German Cancer Center (WTZ), Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen/Düsseldorf, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
De B, Cahlon O, Sine K, Mah D, Hug EB, Wolden SL. Early Axial Growth Outcomes of Pediatric Patients Receiving Proton Craniospinal Irradiation. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2018; 40:574-579. [PMID: 29889805 PMCID: PMC6197896 DOI: 10.1097/mph.0000000000001242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Guidelines on proton craniospinal irradiation (p-CSI) target volume selection in children are lacking. We examined the impact of target volume selection on growth of children receiving p-CSI at a institution. Records of 58 patients who received p-CSI were reviewed. Median age at treatment initiation was 8 years (range, 2 to 18 y). Spinal target volumes included whole vertebral body (WVB) in 67% and partial vertebral body (PVB) in 33%. Height z-scores before and after p-CSI were assessed using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stature-for-age charts. Maximal Cobb angle and height z-score change were compared for WVB versus PVB p-CSI using a t test. Among 93% of patients with detailed data, median follow-up was 19 months (range, 2 to 58 mo) after radiation therapy initiation. Quantitative growth evaluations were available for 64% of patients. Median change in height z-score was -0.5 (range, -2.1 to +0.7) after treatment, representing a decrease (P<0.001) in age-adjusted height. WVB patients had significantly greater reduction in height z-score versus PVB patients (P=0.004) but no difference in Cobb angle change (P>0.05). Despite reluctance surrounding its use in younger patients, PVB p-CSI was associated with similar spinal curvature and less growth suppression as compared with WVB p-CSI; a trial comparing WVB versus PVB in children may be warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, 103 Cedar Grove Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, 103 Cedar Grove Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA
| | - Kevin Sine
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, 103 Cedar Grove Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA
| | - Dennis Mah
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, 103 Cedar Grove Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA
| | - Eugen B. Hug
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, 103 Cedar Grove Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA
| | - Suzanne L. Wolden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, 103 Cedar Grove Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Ray S, Cekanaviciute E, Lima IP, Sørensen BS, Costes SV. Comparing Photon and Charged Particle Therapy Using DNA Damage Biomarkers. Int J Part Ther 2018; 5:15-24. [PMID: 31773017 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-18-00018.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2018] [Accepted: 07/05/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Treatment modalities for cancer radiation therapy have become increasingly diversified given the growing number of facilities providing proton and carbon-ion therapy in addition to the more historically accepted photon therapy. An understanding of high-LET radiobiology is critical for optimization of charged particle radiation therapy and potential DNA damage response. In this review, we present a comprehensive summary and comparison of these types of therapy monitored primarily by using DNA damage biomarkers. We focus on their relative profiles of dose distribution and mechanisms of action from the level of nucleic acid to tumor cell death.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shayoni Ray
- USRA/NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Bass JK, Huang J, Hua CH, Bhagat SP, Mendel LL, Onar-Thomas A, Indelicato DJ, Merchant TE. Auditory Outcomes in Patients Who Received Proton Radiotherapy for Craniopharyngioma. Am J Audiol 2018; 27:306-315. [PMID: 30073327 DOI: 10.1044/2018_aja-18-0026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2018] [Accepted: 04/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Compared to photon-based radiotherapy, protons deliver less radiation to healthy tissue resulting in the potential reduction of late complications such as sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). We report early auditory outcomes in children treated with proton radiotherapy (PRT) for craniopharyngioma. METHOD Conventional frequency (CF = 0.25-8.0 kHz) audiometry, extended high-frequency (EHF = 9.0-16.0 kHz) audiometry, distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) testing, and speech-in-noise (SIN) assessments were prospectively and longitudinally conducted on 74 children with a median of 2 post-PRT evaluations (range, 1-5) per patient. The median age at PRT initiation was 10 years, and median follow-up time was 2 years. Ototoxicity was classified using the Chang Ototoxicity Grading Scale (Chang & Chinosornvatana, 2010) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) criteria (ASHA, 1994). Comparisons were made between baseline and most recent DPOAE levels, with evidence of ototoxicity based on criterion reductions of ≥ 6 dB. The critical difference values for comparing SIN scores between two conditions (i.e., pre- and post-PRT) were used to determine a significant change between test scores. RESULTS At last evaluation, no patients had SNHL in the CF range, and 2 patients had SNHL (Chang Grade 1a) in the EHF range. Based on the ASHA criteria, a decrease in hearing was observed in 0 patients in the CF range alone, in 9 patients in the EHF range alone, and in 15 patients in both the CF and EHF ranges. DPOAE levels decreased at a faster rate at higher versus lower frequencies. For 41 evaluable patients, SIN perception did not decline over time (p = .6463). CONCLUSION At a median follow-up time of 2 years post-PRT, normal hearing was maintained within the CF range. However, subclinical decreases in hearing were observed, particularly in the EHF range and in the DPOAE level; thus, long-term follow-up is recommended to monitor for potential auditory late effects from PRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johnnie K. Bass
- Rehabilitation Services, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Jie Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Chia-Ho Hua
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Shaum P. Bhagat
- Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences, San Jose State University, CA
| | - Lisa Lucks Mendel
- School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, TN
| | - Arzu Onar-Thomas
- Department of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | | | - Thomas E. Merchant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hess CB, Indelicato DJ, Paulino AC, Hartsell WF, Hill-Kayser CE, Perkins SM, Mahajan A, Laack NN, Ermoian RP, Chang AL, Wolden SL, Mangona VS, Kwok Y, Breneman JC, Perentesis JP, Gallotto SL, Weyman EA, Bajaj BVM, Lawell MP, Yeap BY, Yock TI. An Update From the Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry. Front Oncol 2018; 8:165. [PMID: 29881715 PMCID: PMC5976731 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00165] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2018] [Accepted: 04/30/2018] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background/objectives The Pediatric Proton Consortium Registry (PPCR) was established to expedite proton outcomes research in the pediatric population requiring radiotherapy. Here, we introduce the PPCR as a resource to the oncology community and provide an overview of the data available for further study and collaboration. Design/methods A multi-institutional registry of integrated clinical, dosimetric, radiographic, and patient-reported data for patients undergoing proton radiation therapy was conceived in May 2010. Massachusetts General Hospital began enrollment in July of 2012. Subsequently, 12 other institutions joined the PPCR and activated patient accrual, with the latest joining in 2017. An optional patient-reported quality of life (QoL) survey is currently implemented at six institutions. Baseline health status, symptoms, medications, neurocognitive status, audiogram findings, and neuroendocrine testing are collected. Treatment details of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy are documented and radiation plans are archived. Follow-up is collected annually. Data were analyzed 25 September, 2017. Results A total of 1,854 patients have consented and enrolled in the PPCR from October 2012 until September 2017. The cohort is 55% male, 70% Caucasian, and comprised of 79% United States residents. Central nervous system (CNS) tumors comprise 61% of the cohort. The most common CNS histologies are as follows: medulloblastoma (n = 276), ependymoma (n = 214), glioma/astrocytoma (n = 195), craniopharyngioma (n = 153), and germ cell tumors (n = 108). The most common non-CNS tumors diagnoses are as follows: rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 191), Ewing sarcoma (n = 105), Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 66), and neuroblastoma (n = 55). The median follow-up is 1.5 years with a range of 0.14 to 4.6 years. Conclusion A large prospective population of children irradiated with proton therapy has reached a critical milestone to facilitate long-awaited clinical outcomes research in the modern era. This is an important resource for investigators both in the consortium and for those who wish to access the data for academic research pursuits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clayton B Hess
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Arnold C Paulino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - William F Hartsell
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago Proton Center, Chicago, IL, United States
| | | | - Stephanie M Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO, United States
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Nadia N Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Ralph P Ermoian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Andrew L Chang
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States
| | - Suzanne L Wolden
- ProCure Proton Therapy Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Somerset, NJ, United States
| | | | - Young Kwok
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - John C Breneman
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - John P Perentesis
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Sara L Gallotto
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Elizabeth A Weyman
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Benjamin V M Bajaj
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Miranda P Lawell
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Beow Y Yeap
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Torunn I Yock
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
|
23
|
Galle JO, Long DE, Lautenschlaeger T, Zellars RC, Watson GA, Ellsworth SG. Effects of Proton Center Closure on Pediatric Case Volume and Resident Education at an Academic Cancer Center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 100:710-718. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2017] [Revised: 10/18/2017] [Accepted: 10/30/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
24
|
Tsang DS, Murphy ES, Merchant TE. Radiation Therapy for Optic Pathway and Hypothalamic Low-Grade Gliomas in Children. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:642-651. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.07.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2017] [Revised: 06/12/2017] [Accepted: 07/18/2017] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
25
|
Mohan R, Peeler CR, Guan F, Bronk L, Cao W, Grosshans DR. Radiobiological issues in proton therapy. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:1367-1373. [PMID: 28826292 PMCID: PMC5842809 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1348621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2017] [Accepted: 06/12/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for particle therapy is a complex function of particle type, radiation dose, linear energy transfer (LET), cell type, endpoint, etc. In the clinical practice of proton therapy, the RBE is assumed to have a fixed value of 1.1. This assumption, along with the effects of physical uncertainties, may mean that the biologically effective dose distributions received by the patient may be significantly different from what is seen on treatment plans. This may contribute to unforeseen toxicities and/or failure to control the disease. Variability of Proton RBE: It has been shown experimentally that proton RBE varies significantly along the beam path, especially near the end of the particle range. While there is now an increasing acceptance that proton RBE is variable, there is an ongoing debate about whether to change the current clinical practice. Clinical Evidence: A rationale against the change is the uncertainty in the models of variable RBE. Secondly, so far there is no clear clinical evidence of the harm of assuming proton RBE to be 1.1. It is conceivable, however, that the evidence is masked partially by physical uncertainties. It is, therefore, plausible that reduction in uncertainties and their incorporation in the estimation of dose actually delivered may isolate and reveal the variability of RBE in clinical practice. Nevertheless, clinical evidence of RBE variability is slowly emerging as more patients are treated with protons and their response data are analyzed. Modelling and Incorporation of RBE in the Optimization of Proton Therapy: The improvement in the knowledge of RBE could lead to better understanding of outcomes of proton therapy and in the improvement of models to predict RBE. Prospectively, the incorporation of such models in the optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy could lead to improvements in the therapeutic ratio of proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Radhe Mohan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | - Lawrence Bronk
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Wenhua Cao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - David R. Grosshans
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
Ependymoma is a locally aggressive tumor with metastatic potential that arises in diverse locations throughout the brain and spine in children. Tumor and treatment may result in significant morbidity. Cure remains elusive for many patients owing to diverse biology and resistance to conventional therapy. The implementation of systematic postoperative irradiation in clinical trials during the past 20 years has increased the proportion of patients achieving durable disease control with excellent results, as measured by objective functional outcome measures. Clinical, pathologic, and molecular risk stratification should be used to refine treatment regimens for children with ependymoma to reduce the risk of complications associated with therapy and increase the rate of disease control in the setting of combined modality or more intensive therapy. This review covers standards of care and current clinical trials for children with ependymoma, emphasizing the history and evolution of treatment regimens during the past 20 years and the clinical questions they hoped to address.
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
Although major advances have been made in radiation techniques, concerns still exist about the treatment-related acute and long-term side effects. This issue is most notable in the pediatric population because of developing organs and tissues combined with longer life expectancies. Proton beam therapy has the advantage of a reduced dose of radiation with less scatter to normal tissue, which may lead to fewer adverse side effects.
AT A GLANCE: Many pediatric patients with cancer receive radiation therapy.Radiation treatments can cause significant acute and long-term side effects.Proton beam therapy reduces radiation scatter to normal tissues and may decrease acute and late toxicities.
Collapse
|
28
|
Jouglar E, Wagner A, Delpon G, Campion L, Meingan P, Bernier V, Demoor-Goldschmidt C, Mahé MA, Lacornerie T, Supiot S. Can We Spare the Pancreas and Other Abdominal Organs at Risk? A Comparison of Conformal Radiotherapy, Helical Tomotherapy and Proton Beam Therapy in Pediatric Irradiation. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0164643. [PMID: 27764132 PMCID: PMC5072698 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2016] [Accepted: 09/28/2016] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Late abdominal irradiation toxicity during childhood included renal damage, hepatic toxicity and secondary diabetes mellitus. We compared the potential of conformal radiotherapy (CRT), helical tomotherapy (HT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) to spare the abdominal organs at risk (pancreas, kidneys and liver- OAR) in children undergoing abdominal irradiation. METHODS We selected children with abdominal tumors who received more than 10 Gy to the abdomen. Treatment plans were calculated in order to keep the dose to abdominal OAR as low as possible while maintaining the same planned target volume (PTV) coverage. Dosimetric values were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS The dose distribution of 20 clinical cases with a median age of 8 years (range 1-14) were calculated with different doses to the PTV: 5 medulloblastomas (36 Gy), 3 left-sided and 2 right-sided nephroblastomas (14.4 Gy to the tumor + 10.8 Gy boost to para-aortic lymphnodes), 1 left-sided and 4 right-sided or midline neuroblastomas (21 Gy) and 5 Hodgkin lymphomas (19.8 Gy to the para-aortic lymphnodes and spleen). HT significantly reduced the mean dose to the whole pancreas (WP), the pancreatic tail (PT) and to the ipsilateral kidney compared to CRT. PBT reduced the mean dose to the WP and PT compared to both CRT and HT especially in midline and right-sided tumors. PBT decreased the mean dose to the ispilateral kidney but also to the contralateral kidney and the liver compared to CRT. Low dose to normal tissue was similar or increased with HT whereas integral dose and the volume of normal tissue receiving at least 5 and 10 Gy were reduced with PBT compared to CRT and HT. CONCLUSION In children undergoing abdominal irradiation therapy, proton beam therapy reduces the dose to abdominal OAR while sparing normal tissue by limiting low dose irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuel Jouglar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint Herblain, 44800 France
| | - Antoine Wagner
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Oscar Lambret, 3 rue Frédéric Combemale, Lille, 59000 France
| | - Grégory Delpon
- Department of Medical Physics, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint Herblain, 44800 France
| | - Loïc Campion
- Department of Statistics, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint-Herblain, 44800 France
| | - Philippe Meingan
- Department of Radiology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint-Herblain, 44800 France
| | - Valérie Bernier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, 6 Avenue de Bourgogne, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, 54519 France
| | - Charlotte Demoor-Goldschmidt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint Herblain, 44800 France
| | - Marc-André Mahé
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint Herblain, 44800 France
| | - Thomas Lacornerie
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Oscar Lambret, 3 rue Frédéric Combemale, Lille, 59000 France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, boulevard Jacques Monod, Saint Herblain, 44800 France
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lee KA, O'Sullivan C, Daly P, Pears J, Owens C, Timmermann B, Ares C, Combs SE, Indelicato D, Capra M. Proton therapy in paediatric oncology: an Irish perspective. Ir J Med Sci 2016; 186:577-582. [PMID: 27744643 DOI: 10.1007/s11845-016-1520-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2016] [Accepted: 10/11/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton therapy (PT) is a radiotherapy treatment modality that uses protons, rather than conventional photons. PT is often used in paediatric oncology due to its reported capability to reduce acute and late adverse treatment effects. As PT is unavailable in Ireland, patients are referred abroad for treatment. AIMS To: (1) produce a descriptive study of Irish children referred abroad for PT, and (2) discuss the case for PT in general. METHODS A retrospective review of all children referred for PT before October 2015 was performed. Information was gathered regarding demographics, diagnosis, referral timeline, adverse effects attributable to PT, current status and cost. A review of the relevant literature was performed. RESULTS Seventeen children treated in Ireland have been referred abroad for PT. The largest number was in the 0-4 year old group. At initial diagnosis the median age was 4.8 years. The average cost per child was €37,312. Two patients suffered disease relapse. Four have encountered PT-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION Despite the fact that >100,000 patients worldwide have been treated with PT, the level of published evidence to support superiority over conventional treatment remains low. It is debated that randomised control trials in this area would be inconsistent with the principle of clinical equipoise. In contrast, there is a call for level 1 evidence to justify drastic changes in patient care, particularly in light of recent reports of unexpected toxicities. In time, careful evaluation, follow-up and clinical trials will likely support the preferential use of PT in children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Lee
- St. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Radiation Oncology, Dublin, Ireland. .,Our Lady's Children's Hospital Crumlin, Paediatic Oncology, Dublin, Ireland.
| | - C O'Sullivan
- St. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Radiation Oncology, Dublin, Ireland.,Our Lady's Children's Hospital Crumlin, Paediatic Oncology, Dublin, Ireland
| | - P Daly
- St. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network, Radiation Oncology, Dublin, Ireland.,Our Lady's Children's Hospital Crumlin, Paediatic Oncology, Dublin, Ireland
| | - J Pears
- Our Lady's Children's Hospital Crumlin, Paediatic Oncology, Dublin, Ireland
| | - C Owens
- Our Lady's Children's Hospital Crumlin, Paediatic Oncology, Dublin, Ireland
| | - B Timmermann
- Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), HelmholtzZentrum Munchen (HMGU) Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.,Particle Therapy Department, West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany
| | - C Ares
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, 5232, Villigen Psi, Switzerland.,Hopitaux Universitaires de Geneve, Service de Radio-oncologie, Geneve, GE, Switzerland
| | - S E Combs
- Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - D Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0385, USA
| | - M Capra
- Our Lady's Children's Hospital Crumlin, Paediatic Oncology, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Abstract
Over the past 150 years since Virchow's initial characterization of ependymoma, incredible efforts have been made in the classification of these tumors and in the care of pediatric patients with this disease. While the advent of modern neurosurgery and the optimization of radiation have provided significant gains, a more complex but incomplete picture of pediatric ependymomas has begun to form through a combination of international collaborations and detailed genetic and histologic characterizations. This review includes and synthesizes the clinical understanding of pediatric ependymoma and their developing molecular insight into what is truly a family of malignancies in which distinct members require different surgical approaches, radiation plans, and targeted therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas A Vitanza
- Division of Child Neurology, Department of Neurology, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Sonia Partap
- Division of Child Neurology, Department of Neurology, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Vern-Gross TZ, Indelicato DJ, Bradley JA, Rotondo RL. Patterns of Failure in Pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma After Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96:1070-1077. [PMID: 27742542 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2016] [Revised: 08/12/2016] [Accepted: 08/22/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report on the patterns of failure in children with rhabdomyosarcoma treated with proton therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between February 2007 and November 2013, 66 children with a median age of 4.1 years (range, 0.6-15.3 years) diagnosed with nonmetastatic rhabdomyosarcoma were treated with proton therapy. Clinical target volume 1 was defined as the prechemotherapy tumor plus a 1-cm anatomically constrained margin. Clinical target volume 2 was defined as the postchemotherapy tumor (or tumor bed) plus a 0.5-cm anatomically constrained margin, further expanded to encompass potential pathways of spread, including soft tissue infiltrated with tumor at diagnosis. RESULTS Of the 66 children, 11 developed locally progressive disease at a median of 16 months (range, 14-32 months), for an actuarial 2-year local control rate of 88%. Among the children who progressed, median age and tumor size at diagnosis were 6.7 years (range, 0.6-16 years) and 6 cm (range, 2-8 cm), respectively. Of the recurrences, 64% and 36% were embryonal and alveolar, respectively. Disease progression was observed in 7 (64%) parameningeal, 2 (18%) head and neck (other), and 2 (18%) bladder/prostate subsites. At diagnosis, 8 of 11 patients who developed a recurrence were Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study stage 3, and all 11 were group III. Of the relapses, 100% (11 of 11) were confirmed as in-field within the composite 95% isodose line. One of the 11 patients (9%) developed a new simultaneous regional nodal recurrence outside of the previously treated radiation field. CONCLUSION Early data suggest that the sharp dosimetric gradient associated with proton therapy is not associated with an increased risk of marginal failure. Routine use of a 0.5- to 1-cm clinical target volume 1/2 margin with highly conformal proton therapy does not compromise local control in children diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma with unfavorable risk features.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamara Z Vern-Gross
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Ronny L Rotondo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Lo AC, Howard AF, Nichol A, Hasan H, Martin M, Heran M, Goddard K. A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study of Cerebrovascular Disease and Late Effects After Radiation Therapy for Craniopharyngioma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2016; 63:786-93. [PMID: 26756999 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.25889] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2015] [Revised: 11/01/2015] [Accepted: 11/20/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The study objective was to describe radiation-induced vascular abnormalities, stroke prevalence, and stroke risk factors in survivors of childhood craniopharyngioma. PROCEDURE Twenty survivors of childhood craniopharyngioma who received radiotherapy (RT) were included in the study. A clinical history, quality of life assessment, cognitive functioning assessment, magnetic resonance angiogram or computed tomography angiogram, fasting lipid profile, and fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c test were obtained. RESULTS Median age at diagnosis was 10.3 years and median age at time of study was 29.0 years. Vascular abnormalities were detected in six (32%) of 19 patients' angiograms (vascular stenosis, decreased artery size, aneurysm, cavernoma, and small vessel disease). Five (25%) of 20 patients experienced a stroke after RT. Median time since RT was 27.8 versus 9.1 years in patients with versus without vascular abnormalities (P = 0.02). A low level of high-density lipoproteiin (HDL) was present in 100% (5/5) of patients who had a post-RT stroke as compared with 13% (2/15) of patients who did not have any post-RT stroke (P = 0.02). Previous stroke had occurred in 0% (0/5) of patients receiving growth hormone (GH) replacement at the time of study, compared to 40% (6/15) of patients who were not receiving GH replacement (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS Patients with craniopharyngioma treated with RT have a high prevalence of stroke and vascular abnormalities, particularly those with low HDL and longer duration of time since RT. There is a trend to suggest that continual GH replacement may reduce the risk of stroke. These patients should undergo careful monitoring and aggressive modification of stroke risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea C Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia (BC) Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - A Fuchsia Howard
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Alan Nichol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia (BC) Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Haroon Hasan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia (BC) Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Monty Martin
- Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Department of Radiology, BC Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Manraj Heran
- Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Karen Goddard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia (BC) Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Jackson M. Should children travel overseas for proton therapy? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2016; 60:102-4. [DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12420] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2015] [Accepted: 10/20/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Jackson
- Prince of Wales Hospital and University of New South Wales; Sydney New South Wales Australia
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Verma V, Mishra MV, Mehta MP. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of proton radiotherapy. Cancer 2016; 122:1483-501. [DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29882] [Citation(s) in RCA: 141] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2015] [Revised: 12/10/2015] [Accepted: 12/16/2015] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek Verma
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University of Nebraska Medical Center; Omaha Nebraska
| | - Mark V. Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University of Maryland Medical Center; Baltimore Maryland
| | - Minesh P. Mehta
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University of Maryland Medical Center; Baltimore Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Kabarriti R, Mark D, Fox J, Kalnicki S, Garg M. Proton therapy for the treatment of pediatric head and neck cancers: A review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79:1995-2002. [PMID: 26644365 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.10.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2015] [Revised: 10/26/2015] [Accepted: 10/29/2015] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Rafi Kabarriti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111E 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10467, United States
| | - Daniel Mark
- Radiation Oncology, NS-LIJ Medical Center, 450 Lakeville Road, Lake Success, NY 11042, United States
| | - Jana Fox
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111E 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10467, United States
| | - Shalom Kalnicki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111E 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10467, United States
| | - Madhur Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111E 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10467, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Dwyer M. Defining the role of proton therapy in the optimal management of paediatric patients in Australia and New Zealand. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015; 60:105-11. [DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2015] [Accepted: 08/16/2015] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Dwyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Melbourne Victoria Australia
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Varlotto J, DiMaio C, Grassberger C, Tangel M, Mackley H, Pavelic M, Specht C, Sogge S, Nguyen D, Glantz M, Saw C, Upadhyay U, Moser R, Yunus S, Rava P, Fitzgerald T, Glanzman J, Sheehan J. Multi-modality management of craniopharyngioma: a review of various treatments and their outcomes. Neurooncol Pract 2015; 3:173-187. [PMID: 31386091 DOI: 10.1093/nop/npv029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2015] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Craniopharyngioma is a rare tumor that is expected to occur in ∼400 patients/year in the United States. While surgical resection is considered to be the primary treatment when a patient presents with a craniopharyngioma, only 30% of such tumors present in locations that permit complete resection. Radiotherapy has been used as both primary and adjuvant therapy in the treatment of craniopharyngiomas for over 50 years. Modern radiotherapeutic techniques, via the use of CT-based treatment planning and MRI fusion, have permitted tighter treatment volumes that allow for better tumor control while limiting complications. Modern radiotherapeutic series have shown high control rates with lower doses than traditionally used in the two-dimensional treatment era. Intracavitary radiotherapy with radio-isotopes and stereotactic radiosurgery may have a role in the treatment of recurrent cystic and solid recurrences, respectively. Recently, due to the exclusive expression of the Beta-catenin clonal mutations and the exclusive expression of BRAF V600E clonal mutations in the overwhelming majority of adamantinomatous and papillary tumors respectively, it is felt that inhibitors of each pathway may play a role in the future treatment of these rare tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Varlotto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Christopher DiMaio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Clemens Grassberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Matthew Tangel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Heath Mackley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Matt Pavelic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Charles Specht
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Steven Sogge
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Dan Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Michael Glantz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Cheng Saw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Urvashi Upadhyay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Richard Moser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Shakeeb Yunus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Paul Rava
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Thomas Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Jonathan Glanzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| | - Jonas Sheehan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (J.V., P.R., T.F., J.G.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.D.); Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts (C.G.); Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania (M.T., M.P., C.S., D.N., M.G., J.S.); Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (H.M.); Penn State Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (C.S., D.N.); Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N.); Penn State Neuroscience Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania (D.N., M.G., J.S.); Northeast Radiation Oncology, Scranton, Pennsylvania (C.S.); University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Division of Neurologic Surgery, Worcester, Massachusetts (U.U., R.M.); Department of Medical Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts (S.Y.)
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Rieber JG, Kessel KA, Witt O, Behnisch W, Kulozik AE, Debus J, Combs SE. Treatment tolerance of particle therapy in pediatric patients. Acta Oncol 2015; 54:1049-55. [PMID: 25615893 DOI: 10.3109/0284186x.2014.998273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Curative treatment of pediatric cancer not only focuses on long-term survival, but also on reducing treatment-related side effects. Advantages of particle therapy are mainly due to their physical ability of significantly reducing integral dose. METHODS Between January 2009 and December 2012, we treated 83 pediatric patients (aged 21 and younger) at the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center at University Hospital of Heidelberg (HIT). In total 56 patients (67%) received proton irradiation, while 25 (30%) patients were treated with carbon ions (C12). Two patients received both treatments (3%). Treatment toxicity was analyzed retrospectively and documented according to the CTCAE/RTOG classification. In a second step, treatment toxicity from ion therapy was analyzed in comparison to treatment toxicity during photon irradiation of a comparable historical group of 19 pediatric patients. RESULTS In all patients, particle therapy was tolerated well (median follow-up time 3.7 months), children (20 patients) with at least two follow-up visits showed a median follow-up time of 10.2 months. During the first two months patients mainly suffered from radiogenic skin reaction (63%), mucositis (30%), headache and dizziness (35%) as well as nausea and vomiting (13%). Severe toxicity reaction (grade II-IV) was only seen in patients who had intensive simultaneous chemotherapy or who had undergone several operations in the irradiated area before radiotherapy (18%). Treatment toxicity during ion therapy was comparable to treatment toxicity from photon irradiation of a historical group. CONCLUSIONS In comparison to conventional therapy, patients with particle therapy do not suffer from increased acute treatment-related toxicity during the first months. More experience with particle therapy will be needed during the next years to help to thoroughly evaluate the high potential of ion therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliane G. Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Germany
| | - Kerstin A. Kessel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Germany
| | - Olaf Witt
- CCU Pediatric Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Behnisch
- Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andreas E. Kulozik
- Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Germany
| | - Stephanie E. Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München (TUM), Munich, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Clinical outcomes of palliative radiation therapy for children. Pract Radiat Oncol 2015; 5:183-187. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2014.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2014] [Revised: 08/16/2014] [Accepted: 08/20/2014] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
40
|
Dosimetric Comparison and Potential for Improved Clinical Outcomes of Paediatric CNS Patients Treated with Protons or IMRT. Cancers (Basel) 2015; 7:706-22. [PMID: 25927402 PMCID: PMC4491680 DOI: 10.3390/cancers7020706] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2015] [Revised: 04/16/2015] [Accepted: 04/20/2015] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: We compare clinical outcomes of paediatric patients with CNS tumours treated with protons or IMRT. CNS tumours form the second most common group of cancers in children. Radiotherapy plays a major role in the treatment of many of these patients but also contributes to late side effects in long term survivors. Radiation dose inevitably deposited in healthy tissues outside the clinical target has been linked to detrimental late effects such as neurocognitive, behavioural and vascular effects in addition to endocrine abnormalities and second tumours. Methods: A literature search was performed using keywords: protons, IMRT, CNS and paediatric. Of 189 papers retrieved, 10 were deemed relevant based on title and abstract screening. All papers directly compared outcomes from protons with photons, five papers included medulloblastoma, four papers each included craniopharyngioma and low grade gliomas and three papers included ependymoma. Results: This review found that while proton beam therapy offered similar clinical target coverage, there was a demonstrable reduction in integral dose to normal structures. Conclusions: This in turn suggests the potential for superior long term outcomes for paediatric patients with CNS tumours both in terms of radiogenic second cancers and out-of-field adverse effects.
Collapse
|
41
|
Predictive Risk of Radiation Induced Cerebral Necrosis in Pediatric Brain Cancer Patients after VMAT Versus Proton Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2015; 7:617-30. [PMID: 25866999 PMCID: PMC4491674 DOI: 10.3390/cancers7020617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/01/2015] [Revised: 03/16/2015] [Accepted: 03/25/2015] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer of the brain and central nervous system (CNS) is the second most common of all pediatric cancers. Treatment of many of these cancers includes radiation therapy of which radiation induced cerebral necrosis (RICN) can be a severe and potentially devastating side effect. Risk factors for RICN include brain volume irradiated, the dose given per fraction and total dose. Thirteen pediatric patients were selected for this study to determine the difference in predicted risk of RICN when treating with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) compared to passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Plans were compared on the basis of dosimetric endpoints in the planned treatment volume (PTV) and brain and a radiobiological endpoint of RICN calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman probit model. Uncertainty tests were performed to determine if the predicted risk of necrosis was sensitive to positional errors, proton range errors and selection of risk models. Both PSPT and IMPT plans resulted in a significant increase in the maximum dose to the brain, a significant reduction in the total brain volume irradiated to low doses, and a significant lower predicted risk of necrosis compared with the VMAT plans. The findings of this study were upheld by the uncertainty analysis.
Collapse
|
42
|
Abstract
Although melanoma is generally considered a relative radioresistant tumor, radiation therapy (RT) remains a valid and effective treatment option in definitive, adjuvant, and palliative settings. Definitive RT is generally only used in inoperable patients. Despite a high-quality clinical trial showing adjuvant RT following lymphadenectomy in node-positive melanoma patients prevents local and regional recurrence, the role of adjuvant RT in the treatment of melanoma remains controversial and is underused. RT is highly effective in providing symptom palliation for metastatic melanoma. RT combined with new systemic options, such as immunotherapy, holds promise and is being actively evaluated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenyin Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, 111 South 11th Street, Suite G301, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Kornerup JS, Brodin NP, Björk-Eriksson T, Birk Christensen C, Kiil-Berthelsen A, Aznar MC, Hollensen C, Markova E, Munck Af Rosenschöld P. PET/CT-guided treatment planning for paediatric cancer patients: a simulation study of proton and conventional photon therapy. Br J Radiol 2014; 88:20140586. [PMID: 25494657 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of including fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in the planning of paediatric radiotherapy (RT). METHODS Target volumes were first delineated without and subsequently re-delineated with access to (18)F-FDG PET scan information, on duplicate CT sets. RT plans were generated for three-dimensional conformal photon RT (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). The results were evaluated by comparison of target volumes, target dose coverage parameters, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and estimated risk of secondary cancer (SC). RESULTS Considerable deviations between CT- and PET/CT-guided target volumes were seen in 3 out of the 11 patients studied. However, averaging over the whole cohort, CT or PET/CT guidance introduced no significant difference in the shape or size of the target volumes, target dose coverage, irradiated volumes, estimated NTCP or SC risk, neither for IMPT nor 3DCRT. CONCLUSION Our results imply that the inclusion of PET/CT scans in the RT planning process could have considerable impact for individual patients. There were no general trends of increasing or decreasing irradiated volumes, suggesting that the long-term morbidity of RT in childhood would on average remain largely unaffected. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE (18)F-FDG PET-based RT planning does not systematically change NTCP or SC risk for paediatric cancer patients compared with CT only. 3 out of 11 patients had a distinct change of target volumes when PET-guided planning was introduced. Dice and mismatch metrics are not sufficient to assess the consequences of target volume differences in the context of RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J S Kornerup
- 1 Section of Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Patel S, Kostaras X, Parliament M, Olivotto IA, Nordal R, Aronyk K, Hagen N. Recommendations for the referral of patients for proton-beam therapy, an Alberta Health Services report: a model for Canada? ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2014; 21:251-62. [PMID: 25302033 DOI: 10.3747/co.21.2207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Compared with photon therapy, proton-beam therapy (pbt) offers compelling advantages in physical dose distribution. Worldwide, gantry-based proton facilities are increasing in number, but no such facilities exist in Canada. To access pbt, Canadian patients must travel abroad for treatment at high cost. In the face of limited access, this report seeks to provide recommendations for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from pbt and suggests an out-of-country referral process. METHODS The medline, embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1990 and May 2014 that evaluated clinical outcomes after pbt. A draft report developed through a review of evidence was externally reviewed and then approved by the Alberta Health Services Cancer Care Proton Therapy Guidelines steering committee. RESULTS Proton therapy is often used to treat tumours close to radiosensitive tissues and to treat children at risk of developing significant late effects of radiation therapy (rt). In uncontrolled and retrospective studies, local control rates with pbt appear similar to, or in some cases higher than, photon rt. Randomized trials comparing equivalent doses of pbt and photon rt are not available. SUMMARY Referral for pbt is recommended for patients who are being treated with curative intent and with an expectation for long-term survival, and who are able and willing to travel abroad to a proton facility. Commonly accepted indications for referral include chordoma and chondrosarcoma, intraocular melanoma, and solid tumours in children and adolescents who have the greatest risk for long-term sequelae. Current data do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend routine referral of patients with most head-and-neck, breast, lung, gastrointestinal tract, and pelvic cancers, including prostate cancer. It is recommended that all referrals be considered by a multidisciplinary team to select appropriate cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, and Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
| | - X Kostaras
- Guideline Utilization Resource Unit, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB
| | - M Parliament
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, and Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
| | - I A Olivotto
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, and University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
| | - R Nordal
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, and University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
| | - K Aronyk
- Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
| | - N Hagen
- Guideline Utilization Resource Unit, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Rombi B, Vennarini S, Vinante L, Ravanelli D, Amichetti M. Proton radiotherapy for pediatric tumors: review of first clinical results. Ital J Pediatr 2014; 40:74. [PMID: 25260976 PMCID: PMC4421929 DOI: 10.1186/s13052-014-0074-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2014] [Accepted: 08/04/2014] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiation therapy is a part of multidisciplinary management of several childhood cancers. Proton therapy is a new method of irradiation, which uses protons instead of photons. Proton radiation has been used safely and effectively for medulloblastoma, primitive neuro-ectodermal tumors, craniopharyngioma, ependymoma, germ cell intracranial tumors, low-grade glioma, retinoblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma and other soft tissue sarcomas, Ewing’s sarcoma and other bone sarcomas. Moreover, other possible applications are emerging, in particular for lymphoma and neuroblastoma. Although both photon and proton techniques allow similar target volume coverage, the main advantage of proton radiation therapy is to sparing of intermediate-to-low-dose to healthy tissues. This characteristic could translate into clinical reduction of side effects, including a lower risk for secondary cancers. The following review presents the state of the art of proton therapy in the treatment of pediatric malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Rombi
- Unità Operativa di Protonterapia, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
| | - Sabina Vennarini
- Unità Operativa di Protonterapia, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
| | - Lorenzo Vinante
- Unità Operativa di Protonterapia, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy. .,Dipartimento di Medicina, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy.
| | - Daniele Ravanelli
- Unità Operativa di Protonterapia, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
| | - Maurizio Amichetti
- Unità Operativa di Protonterapia, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Merchant TE, Schreiber JE, Wu S, Lukose R, Xiong X, Gajjar A. Critical combinations of radiation dose and volume predict intelligence quotient and academic achievement scores after craniospinal irradiation in children with medulloblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90:554-61. [PMID: 25160611 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.06.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2014] [Revised: 04/16/2014] [Accepted: 06/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To prospectively follow children treated with craniospinal irradiation to determine critical combinations of radiation dose and volume that would predict for cognitive effects. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 1996 and 2003, 58 patients (median age 8.14 years, range 3.99-20.11 years) with medulloblastoma received risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation followed by dose-intense chemotherapy and were followed longitudinally with multiple cognitive evaluations (through 5 years after treatment) that included intelligence quotient (estimated intelligence quotient, full-scale, verbal, and performance) and academic achievement (math, reading, spelling) tests. Craniospinal irradiation consisted of 23.4 Gy for average-risk patients (nonmetastatic) and 36-39.6 Gy for high-risk patients (metastatic or residual disease >1.5 cm(2)). The primary site was treated using conformal or intensity modulated radiation therapy using a 2-cm clinical target volume margin. The effect of clinical variables and radiation dose to different brain volumes were modeled to estimate cognitive scores after treatment. RESULTS A decline with time for all test scores was observed for the entire cohort. Sex, race, and cerebrospinal fluid shunt status had a significant impact on baseline scores. Age and mean radiation dose to specific brain volumes, including the temporal lobes and hippocampi, had a significant impact on longitudinal scores. Dichotomized dose distributions at 25 Gy, 35 Gy, 45 Gy, and 55 Gy were modeled to show the impact of the high-dose volume on longitudinal test scores. The 50% risk of a below-normal cognitive test score was calculated according to mean dose and dose intervals between 25 Gy and 55 Gy at 10-Gy increments according to brain volume and age. CONCLUSIONS The ability to predict cognitive outcomes in children with medulloblastoma using dose-effects models for different brain subvolumes will improve treatment planning, guide intervention, and help estimate the value of newer methods of irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas E Merchant
- Division of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
| | - Jane E Schreiber
- Department of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Shengjie Wu
- Department of Biostatistcs, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Renin Lukose
- Division of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Xiaoping Xiong
- Department of Biostatistcs, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Amar Gajjar
- Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
Technological advances are a major contributor to rising costs in health care, including radiation oncology. Despite the large amount spent on new technologies, technology assessment remains inadequate, leading to potentially costly and unnecessary use of new technologies. Comparative effectiveness studies have an important role to play in evaluating the benefits and harms of new technologies compared with older technologies and have been identified as a priority area for research by the Radiation Oncology Institute. This article outlines the elements of effective technology assessment, identifies key challenges to comparative effectiveness studies of new radiation oncology technologies, and reviews several examples of comparative effectiveness studies in radiation oncology, including studies on conformal radiation, IMRT, proton therapy, and other concurrent new technologies.
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
Densely ionizing radiation has always been a main topic in radiobiology. In fact, α-particles and neutrons are sources of radiation exposure for the general population and workers in nuclear power plants. More recently, high-energy protons and heavy ions attracted a large interest for two applications: hadrontherapy in oncology and space radiation protection in manned space missions. For many years, studies concentrated on measurements of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the energetic particles for different end points, especially cell killing (for radiotherapy) and carcinogenesis (for late effects). Although more recently, it has been shown that densely ionizing radiation elicits signalling pathways quite distinct from those involved in the cell and tissue response to photons. The response of the microenvironment to charged particles is therefore under scrutiny, and both the damage in the target and non-target tissues are relevant. The role of individual susceptibility in therapy and risk is obviously a major topic in radiation research in general, and for ion radiobiology as well. Particle radiobiology is therefore now entering into a new phase, where beyond RBE, the tissue response is considered. These results may open new applications for both cancer therapy and protection in deep space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Durante
- GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research, Biophysics Department, Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Newer methods and advances in radiation therapy promise to reduce the risk of complications in children who require irradiation. They have secured the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of a variety of pediatric central nervous system and solid tumors and for young patients enrolled on clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS Proton therapy is the latest advancement in radiation therapy. Its availability is increasing as new centers are built throughout the United States. Pediatric specialists should understand that proton therapy is in its pioneering stage of development and that advantages have not been quantitatively demonstrated. Proton therapy clearly reduces collateral radiation dose to normal tissue when compared with photon (X-ray)-based methods of irradiation and has the potential to selectively and safely escalate dose to high-risk tumors; however, research results are lacking in both of these areas, leading to some confusion among pediatric specialists with regard to indications and the need to refer patients for this limited resource and expensive form of radiation therapy. SUMMARY This review highlights a number of issues surrounding proton therapy in children and supports the use of proton therapy in clinical trials.
Collapse
|
50
|
Krause M, Baumann M. [Reduced acute toxicity for adults with medulloblastoma treated with proton beam craniospinal irradiation]. Strahlenther Onkol 2013; 190:111-2. [PMID: 24306067 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-013-0492-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- M Krause
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland,
| | | |
Collapse
|