Literature DB >> 28587051

Evaluating Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Relative to Passive Scattering Proton Therapy for Increased Vertebral Column Sparing in Craniospinal Irradiation in Growing Pediatric Patients.

Drosoula Giantsoudi1, Joao Seco2, Bree R Eaton2, F Joseph Simeone2, Hanne Kooy2, Torunn I Yock2, Nancy J Tarbell2, Thomas F DeLaney2, Judith Adams2, Harald Paganetti2, Shannon M MacDonald2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: At present, proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) for growing children is delivered to the whole vertebral body (WVB) to avoid asymmetric growth. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and potential clinical benefit of delivering vertebral body sparing (VBS) versus WVB CSI with passively scattered (PS) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in growing children treated for medulloblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five plans were generated for medulloblastoma patients, who had been previously treated with CSI PS proton radiation therapy: (1) single posteroanterior (PA) PS field covering the WVB (PS-PA-WVB); (2) single PA PS field that included only the thecal sac in the target volume (PS-PA-VBS); (3) single PA IMPT field covering the WVB (IMPT-PA-WVB); (4) single PA IMPT field, target volume including thecal sac only (IMPT-PA-VBS); and (5) 2 posterior-oblique (-35°, +35°) IMPT fields, with the target volume including the thecal sac only (IMPT2F-VBS). For all cases, 23.4 Gy (relative biologic effectiveness [RBE]) was prescribed to 95% of the spinal canal. The dose, linear energy transfer, and variable-RBE-weighted dose distributions were calculated for all plans using the tool for particle simulation, version 2, Monte Carlo system.
RESULTS: IMPT VBS techniques efficiently spared the anterior vertebral bodies (AVBs), even when accounting for potential higher variable RBE predicted by linear energy transfer distributions. Assuming an RBE of 1.1, the V10 Gy(RBE) decreased from 100% for the WVB techniques to 59.5% to 76.8% for the cervical, 29.9% to 34.6% for the thoracic, and 20.6% to 25.1% for the lumbar AVBs, and the V20 Gy(RBE) decreased from 99.0% to 17.8% to 20.0% for the cervical, 7.2% to 7.6% for the thoracic, and 4.0% to 4.6% for the lumbar AVBs when IMPT VBS techniques were applied. The corresponding percentages for the PS VBS technique were higher.
CONCLUSIONS: Advanced proton techniques can sufficiently reduce the dose to the vertebral body and allow for vertebral column growth for children with central nervous system tumors requiring CSI. This was true even when considering variable RBE values. A clinical trial is planned for VBS to the thoracic and lumbosacral spine in growing children.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28587051      PMCID: PMC5466873          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  26 in total

1.  A treatment planning inter-comparison of proton and intensity modulated photon radiotherapy.

Authors:  A J Lomax; T Bortfeld; G Goitein; J Debus; C Dykstra; P A Tercier; P A Coucke; R O Mirimanoff
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties.

Authors:  A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications.

Authors:  J Perl; J Shin; J Schumann; B Faddegon; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Meningeal-neural relations in the intervertebral foramen.

Authors:  S Sunderland
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  Response of growing bone to irradiation: a proposed late effects scoring system.

Authors:  P J Eifel; S S Donaldson; P R Thomas
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1995-03-30       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Radiation induced height impairment in pediatric Hodgkin's disease.

Authors:  K Y Willman; R S Cox; S S Donaldson
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1994-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Potential role of proton therapy in the treatment of pediatric medulloblastoma/primitive neuro-ectodermal tumors: spinal theca irradiation.

Authors:  R Miralbell; A Lomax; M Russo
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1997-07-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Vertebral body growth after craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Katherine A Hartley; Chenghong Li; Fred H Laningham; Matthew J Krasin; Xiaoping Xiong; Thomas E Merchant
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Advantage of protons compared to conventional X-ray or IMRT in the treatment of a pediatric patient with medulloblastoma.

Authors:  W H St Clair; J A Adams; M Bues; B C Fullerton; Sean La Shell; H M Kooy; J S Loeffler; N J Tarbell
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 10.  Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  8 in total

1.  Early Axial Growth Outcomes of Pediatric Patients Receiving Proton Craniospinal Irradiation.

Authors:  Brian De; Oren Cahlon; Kevin Sine; Dennis Mah; Eugen B Hug; Suzanne L Wolden
Journal:  J Pediatr Hematol Oncol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.289

Review 2.  Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 8.013

3.  Redefine the Role of Spot-Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for the Single Brain Metastasis Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

Authors:  Sheng Chang; Gang Liu; Lewei Zhao; Weili Zheng; Di Yan; Peter Chen; Xiangpan Li; Kunyu Yang; Rohan Deraniyagala; Craig Stevens; Inga Grills; Prakash Chinnaiyan; Xiaoqiang Li; Xuanfeng Ding
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 5.738

4.  Transitioning from measurement-based to combined patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Mei Chen; Pablo Yepes; Yoshifumi Hojo; Falk Poenisch; Yupeng Li; Jiayi Chen; Cheng Xu; Xiaodong He; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; Narayan Sahoo; Heng Li; Xiaorong Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Outcome and prognostic factors following palliative craniospinal irradiation for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis.

Authors:  Rami A El Shafie; Karina Böhm; Dorothea Weber; Kristin Lang; Fabian Schlaich; Sebastian Adeberg; Angela Paul; Matthias F Haefner; Sonja Katayama; Florian Sterzing; Juliane Hörner-Rieber; Sarah Löw; Klaus Herfarth; Jürgen Debus; Stefan Rieken; Denise Bernhardt
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 3.989

6.  Inter-patient variations in relative biological effectiveness for cranio-spinal irradiation with protons.

Authors:  Kristian S Ytre-Hauge; Lars Fredrik Fjæra; Eivind Rørvik; Tordis J Dahle; Jon Espen Dale; Sara Pilskog; Camilla H Stokkevåg
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Pediatric Craniospinal Irradiation - The implementation and Use of Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Comparing Photon versus Proton Planning.

Authors:  S Balasubramanian; M K Shobana
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2021-11-20

8.  Fast MCsquare-Based Independent Dose Verification Platform for Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Chunbo Liu; Meng Wei Ho; Jiyeon Park; Wen Chien Hsi; Xiaoying Liang; Zuofeng Li; Yuntao Song; Hansheng Feng; Yawei Zhang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.