PURPOSE: Craniopharyngioma is a pediatric brain tumor whose volume is prone to change during radiation therapy. We compared photon- and proton-based irradiation methods to determine the effect of tumor volume change on target coverage and normal tissue irradiation in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For this retrospective study, we acquired imaging and treatment-planning data from 14 children with craniopharyngioma (mean age, 5.1 years) irradiated with photons (54 Gy) and monitored by weekly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations during radiation therapy. Photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), double-scatter proton (DSP) therapy, and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans were created for each patient based on his or her pre-irradiation MRI. Target volumes were contoured on each weekly MRI scan for adaptive modeling. The measured differences in conformity index (CI) and normal tissue doses, including functional sub-volumes of the brain, were compared across the planning methods, as was target coverage based on changes in target volumes during treatment. RESULTS: CI and normal tissue dose values of IMPT plans were significantly better than those of the IMRT and DSP plans (p < 0.01). Although IMRT plans had a higher CI and lower optic nerve doses (p < 0.01) than did DSP plans, DSP plans had lower cochlear, optic chiasm, brain, and scanned body doses (p < 0.01). The mean planning target volume (PTV) at baseline was 54.8 cm(3), and the mean increase in PTV was 11.3% over the course of treatment. The dose to 95% of the PTV was correlated with a change in the PTV; the R(2) values for all models, 0.73 (IMRT), 0.38 (DSP), and 0.62 (IMPT), were significant (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with photon IMRT, proton therapy has the potential to significantly reduce whole-brain and -body irradiation in pediatric patients with craniopharyngioma. IMPT is the most conformal method and spares the most normal tissue; however, it is highly sensitive to target volume changes, whereas the DSP method is not.
PURPOSE:Craniopharyngioma is a pediatric brain tumor whose volume is prone to change during radiation therapy. We compared photon- and proton-based irradiation methods to determine the effect of tumor volume change on target coverage and normal tissue irradiation in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For this retrospective study, we acquired imaging and treatment-planning data from 14 children with craniopharyngioma (mean age, 5.1 years) irradiated with photons (54 Gy) and monitored by weekly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations during radiation therapy. Photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), double-scatter proton (DSP) therapy, and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans were created for each patient based on his or her pre-irradiation MRI. Target volumes were contoured on each weekly MRI scan for adaptive modeling. The measured differences in conformity index (CI) and normal tissue doses, including functional sub-volumes of the brain, were compared across the planning methods, as was target coverage based on changes in target volumes during treatment. RESULTS: CI and normal tissue dose values of IMPT plans were significantly better than those of the IMRT and DSP plans (p < 0.01). Although IMRT plans had a higher CI and lower optic nerve doses (p < 0.01) than did DSP plans, DSP plans had lower cochlear, optic chiasm, brain, and scanned body doses (p < 0.01). The mean planning target volume (PTV) at baseline was 54.8 cm(3), and the mean increase in PTV was 11.3% over the course of treatment. The dose to 95% of the PTV was correlated with a change in the PTV; the R(2) values for all models, 0.73 (IMRT), 0.38 (DSP), and 0.62 (IMPT), were significant (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with photon IMRT, proton therapy has the potential to significantly reduce whole-brain and -body irradiation in pediatricpatients with craniopharyngioma. IMPT is the most conformal method and spares the most normal tissue; however, it is highly sensitive to target volume changes, whereas the DSP method is not.
Authors: Thomas E Merchant; Erin N Kiehna; Larry E Kun; Raymond K Mulhern; Chenghong Li; Xiaoping Xiong; Frederick A Boop; Robert A Sanford Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Karen M Winkfield; Claudia Linsenmeier; Torunn I Yock; P Ellen Grant; Beow Y Yeap; William E Butler; Nancy J Tarbell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H L Weiner; J H Wisoff; M E Rosenberg; M J Kupersmith; H Cohen; D Zagzag; T Shiminski-Maher; E S Flamm; F J Epstein; D C Miller Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Andrew J Bishop; Brad Greenfield; Anita Mahajan; Arnold C Paulino; M Fatih Okcu; Pamela K Allen; Murali Chintagumpala; Lisa S Kahalley; Mary F McAleer; Susan L McGovern; William E Whitehead; David R Grosshans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Benjamin S Laser; Thomas E Merchant; Daniel J Indelicato; Chia-Ho Hua; Barry L Shulkin; Scott E Snyder Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Michael S Rutenberg; Ronny L Rotondo; Dinesh Rao; Adam L Holtzman; Daniel J Indelicato; Soon Huh; Christopher G Morris; William M Mendenhall Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.130