PURPOSE: To calculated projected second tumor rates and dose to organs at risk (OAR) in patients with benign intracranial meningioma (BM), according to dosimetric comparisons between proton radiotherapy (PRT) and photon radiotherapy (XRT) treatment plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with BM treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 2006-2010 with PRT were replanned with XRT (intensity-modulated or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy), optimizing dose to the tumor while sparing OAR. Total dose was 54 Gy in 1.8 Gy per fraction for all plans. We calculated equivalent uniform doses, normal tissue complication probabilities, and whole brain-based estimates of excess risk of radiation-associated intracranial second tumors. RESULTS: Excess risk of second tumors was significantly lower among PRT compared with XRT plans (1.3 vs. 2.8 per 10,000 patients per year, p < 0.002). Mean equivalent uniform doses were lower among PRT plans for the whole brain (19.0 vs. 22.8 Gy, p < 0.0001), brainstem (23.8 vs. 35.2 Gy, p = 0.004), hippocampi (left, 13.5 vs. 25.6 Gy, p < 0.0001; right, 7.6 vs. 21.8 Gy, p = 0.001), temporal lobes (left, 25.8 vs. 34.6 Gy, p = 0.007; right, 25.8 vs. 32.9 Gy, p = 0.008), pituitary gland (29.2 vs. 37.0 Gy, p = 0.047), optic nerves (left, 28.5 vs. 33.8 Gy, p = 0.04; right, 25.1 vs. 31.1 Gy, p = 0.07), and cochleas (left, 12.2 vs. 15.8 Gy, p = 0.39; right,1.5 vs. 8.8 Gy, p = 0.01). Mean normal tissue complication probability was <1% for all structures and not significantly different between PRT and XRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with XRT, PRT for BM decreases the risk of RT-associated second tumors by half and delivers significantly lower doses to neurocognitive and critical structures of vision and hearing.
PURPOSE: To calculated projected second tumor rates and dose to organs at risk (OAR) in patients with benign intracranial meningioma (BM), according to dosimetric comparisons between proton radiotherapy (PRT) and photon radiotherapy (XRT) treatment plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with BM treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 2006-2010 with PRT were replanned with XRT (intensity-modulated or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy), optimizing dose to the tumor while sparing OAR. Total dose was 54 Gy in 1.8 Gy per fraction for all plans. We calculated equivalent uniform doses, normal tissue complication probabilities, and whole brain-based estimates of excess risk of radiation-associated intracranial second tumors. RESULTS: Excess risk of second tumors was significantly lower among PRT compared with XRT plans (1.3 vs. 2.8 per 10,000 patients per year, p < 0.002). Mean equivalent uniform doses were lower among PRT plans for the whole brain (19.0 vs. 22.8 Gy, p < 0.0001), brainstem (23.8 vs. 35.2 Gy, p = 0.004), hippocampi (left, 13.5 vs. 25.6 Gy, p < 0.0001; right, 7.6 vs. 21.8 Gy, p = 0.001), temporal lobes (left, 25.8 vs. 34.6 Gy, p = 0.007; right, 25.8 vs. 32.9 Gy, p = 0.008), pituitary gland (29.2 vs. 37.0 Gy, p = 0.047), optic nerves (left, 28.5 vs. 33.8 Gy, p = 0.04; right, 25.1 vs. 31.1 Gy, p = 0.07), and cochleas (left, 12.2 vs. 15.8 Gy, p = 0.39; right,1.5 vs. 8.8 Gy, p = 0.01). Mean normal tissue complication probability was <1% for all structures and not significantly different between PRT and XRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with XRT, PRT for BM decreases the risk of RT-associated second tumors by half and delivers significantly lower doses to neurocognitive and critical structures of vision and hearing.
Authors: Brian P Walcott; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth; Christopher J Stapleton; Christopher S Ogilvy; Paul H Chapman; Jay S Loeffler Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Laura A Rechner; John G Eley; Rebecca M Howell; Rui Zhang; Dragan Mirkovic; Wayne D Newhauser Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Nikhil G Thaker; Ankit Agarwal; Matthew Palmer; Rosemarie Hontiveros; Stephen M Hahn; Bruce D Minsky; Ronald Walters; John Bingham; Thomas W Feeley; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-03-24
Authors: Jiheon Song; Saif Aljabab; Lulwah Abduljabbar; Yolanda D Tseng; Jason K Rockhill; James R Fink; Lynn Chang; Lia M Halasz Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Paul D Brown; Caroline Chung; Diane D Liu; Sarah McAvoy; David Grosshans; Karine Al Feghali; Anita Mahajan; Jing Li; Susan L McGovern; Mary-Fran McAleer; Amol J Ghia; Erik P Sulman; Marta Penas-Prado; John F de Groot; Amy B Heimberger; Jihong Wang; Terri S Armstrong; Mark R Gilbert; Nandita Guha-Thakurta; Jeffrey S Wefel Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Rami A El Shafie; Maja Czech; Kerstin A Kessel; Daniel Habermehl; Dorothea Weber; Stefan Rieken; Nina Bougatf; Oliver Jäkel; Jürgen Debus; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.481