Bree R Eaton1, Natia Esiashvili1, Sungjin Kim2, Elizabeth A Weyman3, Lauren T Thornton3, Claire Mazewski4, Tobey MacDonald4, David Ebb5, Shannon M MacDonald3, Nancy J Tarbell3, Torunn I Yock6. 1. Departments of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: tyock@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term disease control and overall survival between children treated with proton and photon radiation therapy (RT) for standard-risk medulloblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institution cohort study includes 88 children treated with chemotherapy and proton (n=45) or photon (n=43) RT between 2000 and 2009. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and patterns of failure were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: Median (range) age was 6 years old at diagnosis (3-21 years) for proton patients versus 8 years (3-19 years) for photon patients (P=.011). Cohorts were similar with respect to sex, histology, extent of surgical resection, craniospinal irradiation (CSI) RT dose, total RT dose, whether the RT boost was delivered to the posterior fossa (PF) or tumor bed (TB), time from surgery to RT start, or total duration of RT. RT consisted of a median (range) CSI dose of 23.4 Gy (18-27 Gy) and a boost of 30.6 Gy (27-37.8 Gy). Median follow-up time is 6.2 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1-6.6 years) for proton patients versus 7.0 years (95% CI: 5.8-8.9 years) for photon patients. There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients treated with proton versus photon RT; 6-year RFS was 78.8% versus 76.5% (P=.948) and 6-year OS was 82.0% versus 87.6%, respectively (P=.285). On multivariate analysis, there was a trend for longer RFS with females (P=.058) and higher CSI dose (P=.096) and for longer OS with females (P=.093). Patterns of failure were similar between the 2 cohorts (P=.908). CONCLUSIONS: Disease control with proton and photon radiation therapy appears equivalent for standard risk medulloblastoma.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term disease control and overall survival between children treated with proton and photon radiation therapy (RT) for standard-risk medulloblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institution cohort study includes 88 children treated with chemotherapy and proton (n=45) or photon (n=43) RT between 2000 and 2009. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and patterns of failure were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: Median (range) age was 6 years old at diagnosis (3-21 years) for proton patients versus 8 years (3-19 years) for photon patients (P=.011). Cohorts were similar with respect to sex, histology, extent of surgical resection, craniospinal irradiation (CSI) RT dose, total RT dose, whether the RT boost was delivered to the posterior fossa (PF) or tumor bed (TB), time from surgery to RT start, or total duration of RT. RT consisted of a median (range) CSI dose of 23.4 Gy (18-27 Gy) and a boost of 30.6 Gy (27-37.8 Gy). Median follow-up time is 6.2 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1-6.6 years) for proton patients versus 7.0 years (95% CI: 5.8-8.9 years) for photon patients. There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients treated with proton versus photon RT; 6-year RFS was 78.8% versus 76.5% (P=.948) and 6-year OS was 82.0% versus 87.6%, respectively (P=.285). On multivariate analysis, there was a trend for longer RFS with females (P=.058) and higher CSI dose (P=.096) and for longer OS with females (P=.093). Patterns of failure were similar between the 2 cohorts (P=.908). CONCLUSIONS: Disease control with proton and photon radiation therapy appears equivalent for standard risk medulloblastoma.
Authors: Roger J Packer; Amar Gajjar; Gilbert Vezina; Lucy Rorke-Adams; Peter C Burger; Patricia L Robertson; Lisa Bayer; Deborah LaFond; Bernadine R Donahue; MaryAnne H Marymont; Karin Muraszko; James Langston; Richard Sposto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter A S Johnstone; Kevin P McMullen; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; James G Douglas; Paul Helft Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Roshan V Sethi; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Michael Raiford; Imran Malhi; Andrzej Niemierko; Otto Rapalino; Paul Caruso; Torunn I Yock; Nancy J Tarbell; Harald Paganetti; Shannon M MacDonald Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Elizabeth Ward; Carol DeSantis; Anthony Robbins; Betsy Kohler; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Christian Carrie; Jacques Grill; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Valerie Bernier; Laetitia Padovani; Jean Louis Habrand; Mohamed Benhassel; Martine Mege; Marc Mahé; Philippe Quetin; Jean Philippe Maire; Marie Helene Baron; Pierre Clavere; Sophie Chapet; Philippe Maingon; Claire Alapetite; Line Claude; Anne Laprie; Sophie Dussart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Atmaram Pai Panandiker; Holly Ning; Anna Likhacheva; Karen Ullman; Barbara Arora; John Ondos; Shervin Karimpour; Roger Packer; Robert Miller; Deborah Citrin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: K A Lee; C O'Sullivan; P Daly; J Pears; C Owens; B Timmermann; C Ares; S E Combs; D Indelicato; M Capra Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Patricia Mae G Santos; Andrew R Barsky; Wei-Ting Hwang; Curtiland Deville; Xingmei Wang; Stefan Both; Justin E Bekelman; John P Christodouleas; Neha Vapiwala Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jillian R Gunther; Ahmad R Rahman; Wenli Dong; Zeinab Abou Yehia; Partow Kebriaei; Gabriela Rondon; Chelsea C Pinnix; Sarah A Milgrom; Pamela K Allen; Bouthaina S Dabaja; Grace L Smith Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-05-10