| Literature DB >> 29463267 |
Kyung Su Kim1, Chan Woo Wee1, Jin-Yong Seok2, Joo Wan Hong2, Jin-Beom Chung2, Keun-Yong Eom1,2, Jae-Sung Kim1,2, Chae-Yong Kim3, Young Ho Park4, Yu Jung Kim5, In Ah Kim6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that hippocampal-sparing radiotherapy via volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) could preserve the neurocognitive function (NCF) of patients with primary brain tumors treated with radiotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: Brain radiotherapy; Hippocampus; Neurocognitive function test; Primary brain tumor; Volumetric modulated arc therapy
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29463267 PMCID: PMC5819694 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-0975-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patients’ and tumor characteristics
| Number | Percent | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median Age (range) | 49.5 yrs. (26-77) | ||
| Sex | |||
| Male | 11 | 42.3 | |
| Female | 15 | 57.7 | |
| Diagnosis | |||
| WHO I | |||
| Pituitary adenoma | 2 | 4 | 15.4 |
| Megingioma | 1 | ||
| Craniopharyngioma | 1 | ||
| WHO II | |||
| Oligodendroglioma | 3 | 8 | 30.8 |
| Atypical meningioma | 3 | ||
| Diffuse astrocytoma | 1 | ||
| Ependymoma | 1 | ||
| WHO III | |||
| Anaplastic astrocytoma | 2 | 6 | 23.1 |
| Anaplastic oligodendroglioma | 2 | ||
| Anaplastic meningioma | 1 | ||
| Anaplastic hemangiopericytoma | 1 | ||
| WHO IV | |||
| Glioblastoma | 7 | 8 | 30.8 |
| Gliosarcoma | 1 | ||
| Surgery | |||
| GTR/STR | 22 | 84.6 | |
| Bx only/No surgery | 4 | 15.4 | |
| Concurrent Chemotherapy | 8 | 30.8 | |
| Location | |||
| Frontal | 5 | 19.2 | |
| Parietal | 5 | 19.2 | |
| Temporal | 6 | 23.1 | |
| Ocippital | 1 | 3.8 | |
| Temporo-parietal | 2 | 7.7 | |
| Fronto-temporal | 1 | 3.8 | |
| Fronto-Prietal | 1 | 3.8 | |
| Central | 5 | 19.2 | |
| Planning Target Volume (PTV) | |||
| Vol(cc) | 173.1 cm3 (30.3-493.6) | ||
| Prescribed dose | 60 Gy (40-60) | ||
GTR gross total resection; STR, subtotal resection
Dosimetric analysis
| Dosimetric parameters | Median (range) |
|---|---|
| Hippocampus | |
| Contralateral | |
| Vol(cc) | 1.8 cm3 (0.9-2.4) |
| D100% | 7.2Gy (0.6-11.7) |
| Dmax | 16.4 Gy (3.5-63.4) |
| Dmean | 12.3 Gy (1.3-19.7) |
| Dmean (EQD2/2) | 7.4 Gy2 (0.7-13.1) |
| Ipsilateral | |
| Vol(cc) | 1.7 cm3 (0.6-2.3) |
| D100% | 8.4 Gy (0.7-60.0) |
| Dmax | 40.9 Gy (5.7-64.3) |
| Dmean | 15.9 Gy (2.0-60.3) |
| Dmean (EQD2/2) | 10.3 Gy2 (1.0-63.4) |
| Bilateral | |
| Dmean | 13.4 (1.8-38.3) |
| Dmean (EQD2/2) | 8.3 Gy2 (0.9-31.3) |
| Optic nerve | |
| Dmax | 31.7 Gy (0.5-58.5) |
| Optic chiasm | |
| Dmax | 42.5 Gy (1.0-57.8) |
| Brain stem | |
| Dmax | 43.3 Gy (0.2-61.5) |
| Eyeballs | |
| Dmax | 13.2Gy (0.5-38.1) |
| Lenses | |
| Dmax | 3.5Gy (0.4-14.0) |
D dose to 100% volume of the structure, D maximum dose, D mean dose, EQD equivalent 2 Gy dose with α/β = 2
Change of neurocognitive function (NCF) test at seven months from baseline
| Mean change from Baseline (%)a | 95% CI | Probability of deteriorationb(%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMSE | − 1.2 | − 9.8 to 7.4 | 3.8 |
| SVLT-Total recall | −7.7 | −19.6 to 4.2 | 7.7 |
| SVLT-Delayed recall | −9.2c | − 25.4 to 7.0c | 7.7 |
| SVLT-Recognition | −3.4 | −12.7 to 5.8 | 11.5 |
| RCFT-COPY | 1.8 | −7.4 to 11.1 | 24 |
| RCFT-Immediate recall | −8.1 | −36.2 to 20.0 | 8 |
| RCFT-Delayed recall | −25.2d | − 52.8 to 2.5d | 8 |
| RCFT-Recognition | −3.8 | −11.2 to 4.0 | 12 |
MMSE Mini-Mental State Examination, SVLT Seoul Verbal Learning Test, RCFT Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial
aΔNCF = (NCFB-NCFF)/NCFB, Where B = baseline and F = follow-up, (Minus change indicate improved NCF)
bDeterioration in NCF test from baseline defined as drop of z-score 1.5 (drop of 1.5 standard deviation)
cExclusion of one patient with 0 test result at baseline
dExclusion of one patient who could not be assessed at baseline
Fig. 1Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Seoul Verbal Learning Test (SVLT) score at baseline and at seven months
Association between hippocampus dose and neurocognitive test deterioration
| Mean dose (EQD2/2) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bilateral hippocampi | Right hippocampus | P value | Left hippocampus | P value | ||
| SVLT-Total recall | 0.033a | 0.398 | 0.013a | |||
| No Deterioration ( | 10.6 ± 6.5 | 15.7 ± 16.8 | 11.8 ± 14.1 | |||
| Deterioration ( | 20.3 ± 11.5 | 7.2 ± 1.7 | 37.7 ± 27.6 | |||
| SVLT-Delayed recall | 0.115 | 0.558 | 0.074 | |||
| No Deterioration ( | 11.0 ± 6.7 | 15.2 ± 16.6 | 13.1 ± 15.0 | |||
| Deterioration (n = 2) | 19.8 ± 16.3 | 8.2 ± 0.1 | 36.0 ± 38.9 | |||
| SVLT-Recognition | 0.003a | 0.427 | 0.001a | |||
| No Deterioration ( | 10.2 ± 6.0 | 13.8 ± 15.8 | 11.1 ± 11.7 | |||
| Deterioration (n = 3) | 23.3 ± 9.4 | 21.8 ± 19.5 | 43.1 ± 30.9 | |||
| RCFT-COPY | 0.469 | 0.211 | 0.261 | |||
| No Deterioration ( | 11.1 ± 6.6 | 16.9 ± 17.7 | 12.7 ± 14.9 | |||
| Deterioration ( | 13.7 ± 10.7 | 7.5 ± 3.7 | 22.0 ± 24.6 | |||
| RCFT-Immediate recall | 0.156 | 0.513 | 0.081 | |||
| No Deterioration (n = 24) | 11.1 ± 6.6 | 15.3 ± 16.5 | 13.1 ± 15.0 | |||
| Deterioration ( | 19.0 ± 17.4 | 7.4 ± 1.2 | 36.0 ± 39.4 | |||
| RCFT-Delayed recall | 0.156 | 0.513 | 0.081 | |||
| No Deterioration ( | 11.1 ± 6.6 | 15.3 ± 16.5 | 13.1 ± 15.0 | |||
| Deterioration ( | 19.0 ± 17.4 | 7.4 ± 1.2 | 35.6 ± 39.4 | |||
| RCFT-Recognition | 0.042a | 0.406 | 0.257 | |||
| No Deterioration ( | 10.6 ± 6.5 | 13.8 ± 16.0 | 13.4 ± 15.2 | |||
| Deterioration ( | 19.9 ± 11.5 | 22.1 ± 20.9 | 25.8 ± 32.7 | |||
Numbers are represented as mean ± SD
SVLT Seoul Verbal Learning Test, RCFT Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial
aindicate statistical significance by student’s t-test