PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provide highly conformal target radiation doses, but also expose large volumes of healthy tissue to low-dose radiation. With improving survival, more children with medulloblastoma (MB) are at risk of late adverse effects of radiotherapy, including secondary cancers. We evaluated the characteristics of IMRT and VMAT craniospinal irradiation treatment plans in children with standard-risk MB to compare radiation dose delivery to target organs and organs at risk (OAR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Each of 10 children with standard-risk MB underwent both IMRT and VMAT treatment planning. Dose calculations used inverse planning optimization with a craniospinal dose of 23.4 Gy followed by a posterior fossa boost to 55.8 Gy. Clinical and planning target volumes were demarcated on axial computed tomography images. Dose distributions to target organs and OAR for each planning technique were measured and compared with published dose-volume toxicity data for pediatric patients. RESULTS: All patients completed treatment planning for both techniques. Analyses and comparisons of dose distributions and dose-volume histograms for the planned target volumes, and dose delivery to the OAR for each technique demonstrated the following: (1) VMAT had a modest, but significantly better, planning target volume-dose coverage and homogeneity compared with IMRT; (2) there were different OAR dose-sparing profiles for IMRT versus VMAT; and (3) neither IMRT nor VMAT demonstrated dose reductions to the published pediatric dose limits for the eyes, the lens, the cochlea, the pituitary, and the brain. CONCLUSIONS: The use of both IMRT and VMAT provides good target tissue coverage and sparing of the adjacent tissue for MB. Both techniques resulted in OAR dose delivery within published pediatric dose guidelines, except those mentioned above. Pediatric patients with standard-risk MB remain at risk for late endocrinologic, sensory (auditory and visual), and brain functional impairments.
PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provide highly conformal target radiation doses, but also expose large volumes of healthy tissue to low-dose radiation. With improving survival, more children with medulloblastoma (MB) are at risk of late adverse effects of radiotherapy, including secondary cancers. We evaluated the characteristics of IMRT and VMAT craniospinal irradiation treatment plans in children with standard-risk MB to compare radiation dose delivery to target organs and organs at risk (OAR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Each of 10 children with standard-risk MB underwent both IMRT and VMAT treatment planning. Dose calculations used inverse planning optimization with a craniospinal dose of 23.4 Gy followed by a posterior fossa boost to 55.8 Gy. Clinical and planning target volumes were demarcated on axial computed tomography images. Dose distributions to target organs and OAR for each planning technique were measured and compared with published dose-volume toxicity data for pediatric patients. RESULTS: All patients completed treatment planning for both techniques. Analyses and comparisons of dose distributions and dose-volume histograms for the planned target volumes, and dose delivery to the OAR for each technique demonstrated the following: (1) VMAT had a modest, but significantly better, planning target volume-dose coverage and homogeneity compared with IMRT; (2) there were different OAR dose-sparing profiles for IMRT versus VMAT; and (3) neither IMRT nor VMAT demonstrated dose reductions to the published pediatric dose limits for the eyes, the lens, the cochlea, the pituitary, and the brain. CONCLUSIONS: The use of both IMRT and VMAT provides good target tissue coverage and sparing of the adjacent tissue for MB. Both techniques resulted in OAR dose delivery within published pediatric dose guidelines, except those mentioned above. Pediatric patients with standard-risk MB remain at risk for late endocrinologic, sensory (auditory and visual), and brain functional impairments.
Authors: Zoltán Lőcsei; Róbert Farkas; Kornélia Borbásné Farkas; Klára Sebestyén; Zsolt Sebestyén; Zoltán Musch; Ágnes Vojcek; Noémi Benedek; László Mangel; Gábor Ottóffy Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Nicholas Major; Neal A Patel; Josiah Bennett; Ena Novakovic; Dana Poloni; Mickey Abraham; Nolan J Brown; Julian L Gendreau; Ronald Sahyouni; Joshua Loya Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-27