PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric benefits of advanced radiotherapy techniques for craniospinal irradiation in cancer in children. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), tomotherapy (TOMO), and proton beam treatment (PBT) in the scattering mode was planned for each of 10 patients at our institution. Dosimetric benefits and organ-specific radiation-induced cancer risks were based on comparisons of dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and on the application of organ equivalent doses (OEDs), respectively. RESULTS: When we analyzed the organ-at-risk volumes that received 30%, 60%, and 90% of the prescribed dose (PD), we found that PBT was superior to TOMO and 3D-CRT. On average, the doses delivered by PBT to the esophagus, stomach, liver, lung, pancreas, and kidney were 19.4 Gy, 0.6 Gy, 0.3 Gy, 2.5 Gy, 0.2 Gy, and 2.2 Gy for the PD of 36 Gy, respectively, which were significantly lower than the doses delivered by TOMO (22.9 Gy, 4.5 Gy, 6.1 Gy, 4.0 Gy, 13.3 Gy, and 4.9 Gy, respectively) and 3D-CRT (34.6 Gy, 3.6 Gy, 8.0 Gy, 4.6 Gy, 22.9 Gy, and 4.3 Gy, respectively). Although the average doses delivered by PBT to the chest and abdomen were significantly lower than those of 3D-CRT or TOMO, these differences were reduced in the head-and-neck region. OED calculations showed that the risk of secondary cancers in organs such as the stomach, lungs, thyroid, and pancreas was much higher when 3D-CRT or TOMO was used than when PBT was used. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with photon techniques, PBT showed improvements in most dosimetric parameters for CSI patients, with lower OEDs to organs at risk.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric benefits of advanced radiotherapy techniques for craniospinal irradiation in cancer in children. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), tomotherapy (TOMO), and proton beam treatment (PBT) in the scattering mode was planned for each of 10 patients at our institution. Dosimetric benefits and organ-specific radiation-induced cancer risks were based on comparisons of dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and on the application of organ equivalent doses (OEDs), respectively. RESULTS: When we analyzed the organ-at-risk volumes that received 30%, 60%, and 90% of the prescribed dose (PD), we found that PBT was superior to TOMO and 3D-CRT. On average, the doses delivered by PBT to the esophagus, stomach, liver, lung, pancreas, and kidney were 19.4 Gy, 0.6 Gy, 0.3 Gy, 2.5 Gy, 0.2 Gy, and 2.2 Gy for the PD of 36 Gy, respectively, which were significantly lower than the doses delivered by TOMO (22.9 Gy, 4.5 Gy, 6.1 Gy, 4.0 Gy, 13.3 Gy, and 4.9 Gy, respectively) and 3D-CRT (34.6 Gy, 3.6 Gy, 8.0 Gy, 4.6 Gy, 22.9 Gy, and 4.3 Gy, respectively). Although the average doses delivered by PBT to the chest and abdomen were significantly lower than those of 3D-CRT or TOMO, these differences were reduced in the head-and-neck region. OED calculations showed that the risk of secondary cancers in organs such as the stomach, lungs, thyroid, and pancreas was much higher when 3D-CRT or TOMO was used than when PBT was used. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with photon techniques, PBT showed improvements in most dosimetric parameters for CSI patients, with lower OEDs to organs at risk.
Authors: Aaron P Brown; Christian L Barney; David R Grosshans; Mary Frances McAleer; John F de Groot; Vinay K Puduvalli; Susan L Tucker; Cody N Crawford; Meena Khan; Soumen Khatua; Mark R Gilbert; Paul D Brown; Anita Mahajan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Susan L McGovern; M Fatih Okcu; Mark F Munsell; Nancy Kumbalasseriyil; David R Grosshans; Mary F McAleer; Murali Chintagumpala; Soumen Khatua; Anita Mahajan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rupesh Kotecha; Minesh P Mehta; Eric L Chang; Paul D Brown; John H Suh; Simon S Lo; Sunit Das; Haider H Samawi; Julia Keith; James Perry; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Christian L Barney; Aaron P Brown; David R Grosshans; Mary Frances McAleer; John F de Groot; Vinay Puduvalli; Susan L Tucker; Cody N Crawford; Mark R Gilbert; Paul D Brown; Anita Mahajan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Nataniel H Lester-Coll; Christopher B Morse; Huifang A Zhai; Stefan Both; Jill P Ginsberg; Clarisa R Gracia; Robert A Lustig; Zelig Tochner; Christine E Hill-Kayser Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: I-Chia Liu; Adam L Holtzman; Ronny L Rotondo; Daniel J Indelicato; Sridharan Gururangan; Robert Cavaliere; Bridgette Carter; Christopher G Morris; Daryoush Tavanaiepour; Michael S Rutenberg Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Karla Leach; Shikui Tang; Jared Sturgeon; Andrew K Lee; Ryan Grover; Parag Sanghvi; James Urbanic; Chang Chang Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25