N Patrik Brodin1, Per Munck af Rosenschöld, Malin Blomstrand, Anne Kiil-Berthlesen, Christian Hollensen, Ivan R Vogelius, Birgitta Lannering, Søren M Bentzen, Thomas Björk-Eriksson. 1. Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (M.B.); Centre for Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (M.B.); Radiation Medicine Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark (N.P.B., P.M.R., A.K.-B., C.H., I.R.V., S.M.B.); Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark (N.P.B., P.M.R.); Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Centre of Diagnostic Investigations, Copenhagen, Denmark (A.K.-B.); Department of Pediatric Oncology, the Queen Silvia Children's Hospital, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (B.L.); Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin (S.M.B.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (T.B.-E.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated how varying the treatment margin and applying hippocampal sparing and proton therapy impact the risk of neurocognitive impairment in pediatric medulloblastoma patients compared with current standard 3D conformal radiotherapy. METHODS: We included 17 pediatric medulloblastoma patients to represent the variability in tumor location relative to the hippocampal region. Treatment plans were generated using 3D conformal radiotherapy, hippocampal sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and spot-scanned proton therapy, using 3 different treatment margins for the conformal tumor boost. Neurocognitive impairment risk was estimated based on dose-response models from pediatric CNS malignancy survivors and compared among different margins and treatment techniques. RESULTS: Mean hippocampal dose and corresponding risk of cognitive impairment were decreased with decreasing treatment margins (P < .05). The largest risk reduction, however, was seen when applying hippocampal sparing proton therapy-the estimated risk of impaired task efficiency (95% confidence interval) was 92% (66%-98%), 81% (51%-95%), and 50% (30%-70%) for 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton therapy, respectively, for the smallest boost margin and 98% (78%-100%), 90% (60%-98%), and 70% (39%-90%) if boosting the whole posterior fossa. Also, the distance between the closest point of the planning target volume and the center of the hippocampus can be used to predict mean hippocampal dose for a given treatment technique. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate a considerable clinical benefit of hippocampal sparing radiotherapy. In choosing treatment margins, the tradeoff between margin size and risk of neurocognitive impairment quantified here should be considered.
BACKGROUND: We investigated how varying the treatment margin and applying hippocampal sparing and proton therapy impact the risk of neurocognitive impairment in pediatric medulloblastomapatients compared with current standard 3D conformal radiotherapy. METHODS: We included 17 pediatric medulloblastomapatients to represent the variability in tumor location relative to the hippocampal region. Treatment plans were generated using 3D conformal radiotherapy, hippocampal sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and spot-scanned proton therapy, using 3 different treatment margins for the conformal tumor boost. Neurocognitive impairment risk was estimated based on dose-response models from pediatric CNS malignancy survivors and compared among different margins and treatment techniques. RESULTS: Mean hippocampal dose and corresponding risk of cognitive impairment were decreased with decreasing treatment margins (P < .05). The largest risk reduction, however, was seen when applying hippocampal sparing proton therapy-the estimated risk of impaired task efficiency (95% confidence interval) was 92% (66%-98%), 81% (51%-95%), and 50% (30%-70%) for 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton therapy, respectively, for the smallest boost margin and 98% (78%-100%), 90% (60%-98%), and 70% (39%-90%) if boosting the whole posterior fossa. Also, the distance between the closest point of the planning target volume and the center of the hippocampus can be used to predict mean hippocampal dose for a given treatment technique. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate a considerable clinical benefit of hippocampal sparing radiotherapy. In choosing treatment margins, the tradeoff between margin size and risk of neurocognitive impairment quantified here should be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
cognitive risk estimation; hippocampal sparing; medulloblastoma; tumor bed boost
Authors: Radoslaw Rola; Jacob Raber; Angela Rizk; Shinji Otsuka; Scott R VandenBerg; Duncan R Morhardt; John R Fike Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Suzanne L Wolden; Ira J Dunkel; Mark M Souweidane; Laura Happersett; Yasmin Khakoo; Karen Schupak; David Lyden; Steven A Leibel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James G Douglas; Jerry L Barker; Richard G Ellenbogen; J Russell Geyer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jacob Raber; Radoslaw Rola; Anthony LeFevour; Duncan Morhardt; Justine Curley; Shinichiro Mizumatsu; Scott R VandenBerg; John R Fike Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Sébastien Perreault; Robert M Lober; Anne-Sophie Carret; Guohua Zhang; Linda Hershon; Jean-Claude Décarie; Kristen Yeom; Hannes Vogel; Paul G Fisher; Sonia Partap Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Paul D Brown; Jan C Buckner; Judith R O'Fallon; Nancy L Iturria; Cerise A Brown; Brian P O'Neill; Bernd W Scheithauer; Robert P Dinapoli; Robert M Arusell; Walter J Curran; Ross Abrams; Edward G Shaw Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert J Brown; Brandon J Jun; Jesse D Cushman; Christine Nguyen; Adam H Beighley; Johnny Blanchard; Kei Iwamoto; Dorthe Schaue; Neil G Harris; James D Jentsch; Stefan Bluml; William H McBride Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: D J Noble; T Ajithkumar; J Lambert; I Gleeson; M V Williams; S J Jefferies Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Daniel Gram; André Haraldsson; N Patrik Brodin; Karsten Nysom; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 3.481