Jeffrey P Gross1, Stephanie Powell2, Frank Zelko2, William Hartsell1,3,4, Stewart Goldman5, Jason Fangusaro6, Rishi R Lulla7, Natasha Pillay Smiley5, John Han-Chih Chang8, Vinai Gondi1,3,4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Radiation Oncology Consultants LLC, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine and the Aflac Cancer Center, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Pediatrics, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survivors of pediatric brain tumors are at risk for impaired development in multiple neuropsychological domains. The purpose of this study was to compare neuropsychological outcomes of pediatric brain tumor patients who underwent X-ray radiotherapy (XRT) versus proton radiotherapy (PRT). METHODS: Pediatric patients who underwent either XRT or PRT and received posttreatment age-appropriate neuropsychological evaluation-including measures of intelligence (IQ), attention, memory, visuographic skills, academic skills, and parent-reported adaptive functioning-were identified. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences in neuropsychological outcomes and included tests for interaction between treatment cohort and follow-up time. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2017, 125 patients with tumors located in the supratentorial (17.6%), midline (28.8%), or posterior fossa (53.6%) compartments received radiation and had posttreatment neuropsychological evaluation. Median age at treatment was 7.4 years. The PRT patient cohort had higher estimated SES and shorter median time from radiotherapy completion to last neuropsychological evaluation (6.7 vs 2.6 y, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, PRT was associated with higher full-scale IQ (β = 10.6, P = 0.048) and processing speed (β = 14.4, P = 0.007) relative to XRT, with trend toward higher verbal IQ (β = 9.9, P = 0.06) and general adaptive functioning (β = 11.4, P = 0.07). Planned sensitivity analyses truncating follow-up interval in the XRT cohort re-demonstrated higher verbal IQ (P = 0.01) and IQ (P = 0.04) following PRT, with trend toward improved processing speed (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: PRT is associated with favorable outcomes for intelligence and processing speed. Combined with other strategies for treatment de-intensification, PRT may further reduce neuropsychological morbidity of brain tumor treatment.
BACKGROUND: Survivors of pediatric brain tumors are at risk for impaired development in multiple neuropsychological domains. The purpose of this study was to compare neuropsychological outcomes of pediatric brain tumorpatients who underwent X-ray radiotherapy (XRT) versus proton radiotherapy (PRT). METHODS: Pediatric patients who underwent either XRT or PRT and received posttreatment age-appropriate neuropsychological evaluation-including measures of intelligence (IQ), attention, memory, visuographic skills, academic skills, and parent-reported adaptive functioning-were identified. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences in neuropsychological outcomes and included tests for interaction between treatment cohort and follow-up time. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2017, 125 patients with tumors located in the supratentorial (17.6%), midline (28.8%), or posterior fossa (53.6%) compartments received radiation and had posttreatment neuropsychological evaluation. Median age at treatment was 7.4 years. The PRTpatient cohort had higher estimated SES and shorter median time from radiotherapy completion to last neuropsychological evaluation (6.7 vs 2.6 y, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, PRT was associated with higher full-scale IQ (β = 10.6, P = 0.048) and processing speed (β = 14.4, P = 0.007) relative to XRT, with trend toward higher verbal IQ (β = 9.9, P = 0.06) and general adaptive functioning (β = 11.4, P = 0.07). Planned sensitivity analyses truncating follow-up interval in the XRT cohort re-demonstrated higher verbal IQ (P = 0.01) and IQ (P = 0.04) following PRT, with trend toward improved processing speed (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS:PRT is associated with favorable outcomes for intelligence and processing speed. Combined with other strategies for treatment de-intensification, PRT may further reduce neuropsychological morbidity of brain tumor treatment.
Authors: Richard E Nisbett; Joshua Aronson; Clancy Blair; William Dickens; James Flynn; Diane F Halpern; Eric Turkheimer Journal: Am Psychol Date: 2012-01-02
Authors: Kim Edelstein; Brenda J Spiegler; Sharon Fung; Tony Panzarella; Donald J Mabbott; Natalie Jewitt; Norma Mammone D'Agostino; Warren P Mason; Eric Bouffet; Uri Tabori; Normand Laperriere; David C Hodgson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Tara M Brinkman; Wilburn E Reddick; Joshua Luxton; John O Glass; Noah D Sabin; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Kevin R Krull Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Marcos Di Pinto; Heather M Conklin; Chenghong Li; Thomas E Merchant Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Torunn I Yock; Beow Y Yeap; David H Ebb; Elizabeth Weyman; Bree R Eaton; Nicole A Sherry; Robin M Jones; Shannon M MacDonald; Margaret B Pulsifer; Beverly Lavally; Annah N Abrams; Mary S Huang; Karen J Marcus; Nancy J Tarbell Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Melissa M Hudson; Ann C Mertens; Yutaka Yasui; Wendy Hobbie; Hegang Chen; James G Gurney; Mark Yeazel; Christopher J Recklitis; Neyssa Marina; Leslie R Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-09-24 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Lisa S Kahalley; Rachel Peterson; M Douglas Ris; Laura Janzen; M Fatih Okcu; David R Grosshans; Vijay Ramaswamy; Arnold C Paulino; David Hodgson; Anita Mahajan; Derek S Tsang; Normand Laperriere; William E Whitehead; Robert C Dauser; Michael D Taylor; Heather M Conklin; Murali Chintagumpala; Eric Bouffet; Donald Mabbott Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emily A H Warren; Kimberly P Raghubar; Paul T Cirino; Amanda E Child; Philip J Lupo; David R Grosshans; Arnold C Paulino; M Fatih Okcu; Charles G Minard; M Douglas Ris; Anita Mahajan; Andres Viana; Murali Chintagumpala; Lisa S Kahalley Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 3.838
Authors: Amanda E Child; Emily A Warren; David R Grosshans; Arnold C Paulino; M Fatih Okcu; M Douglas Ris; Anita Mahajan; Jessica Orobio; Paul T Cirino; Charles G Minard; Andres G Viana; Johanna Bick; Steven P Woods; Murali Chintagumpala; Lisa S Kahalley Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.838
Authors: Ade Oyefiade; Iris Paltin; Cinzia R De Luca; Kristina K Hardy; David R Grosshans; Murali Chintagumpala; Donald J Mabbott; Lisa S Kahalley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Bree R Eaton; Grace W Fong; Lisa M Ingerski; Margaret B Pulsifer; Subir Goyal; Chao Zhang; Elizabeth A Weyman; Natia Esiashvili; James L Klosky; Tobey J MacDonald; David H Ebb; Shannon M MacDonald; Nancy J Tarbell; Torunn I Yock Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 6.921