Kristofer W Roberts1, Hok Seum Wan Chan Tseung1, Laurence J Eckel2, William S Harmsen3, Chris Beltran1, Nadia N Laack4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: laack.nadia@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence of imaging changes in our pediatric brain tumor population treated with spot-scanning proton therapy and analyze the spatial correlation of imaging changes with a novel biologic dose model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All pediatric patients treated during the first year of our institution's experience who received a minimum treatment planning dose (TPD) of 5040 cGyE with available follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were selected for analysis. Posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging scans were fused with the treatment planning computed tomography. All T1 post-gadolinium enhancement, T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery changes, TPD, and biologic dose (BD) volumes outside of the original gross tumor volume were contoured for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in the analysis, 7 of whom developed posttreatment radiologic changes. The volumetric overlap of the T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery changes and BD volumes was significantly greater than the overlap with the TPD volumes. Median volumetric overlaps of 85%, 18%, and 0% were observed with the BD105%, BD110%, and TPD105%, respectively. A nonsignificant increase in the volumetric overlap of the T1C+ changes and BD volumes was also observed. No correlation was observed between the total volume of BD110%, BD105%, or physical dose 105% and the development of imaging changes. CONCLUSIONS: Within our pediatric brain tumor population treated with spot-scanning proton therapy, our BD model demonstrated superior volumetric overlap with posttreatment T2 changes compared with the TPD model. Using a BD model in treatment planning for spot-scanning proton therapy may help avoid delivery of excessive BD to critical structures and may help minimize the risk of radiation-related late effects.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence of imaging changes in our pediatric brain tumor population treated with spot-scanning proton therapy and analyze the spatial correlation of imaging changes with a novel biologic dose model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All pediatric patients treated during the first year of our institution's experience who received a minimum treatment planning dose (TPD) of 5040 cGyE with available follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were selected for analysis. Posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging scans were fused with the treatment planning computed tomography. All T1 post-gadolinium enhancement, T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery changes, TPD, and biologic dose (BD) volumes outside of the original gross tumor volume were contoured for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in the analysis, 7 of whom developed posttreatment radiologic changes. The volumetric overlap of the T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery changes and BD volumes was significantly greater than the overlap with the TPD volumes. Median volumetric overlaps of 85%, 18%, and 0% were observed with the BD105%, BD110%, and TPD105%, respectively. A nonsignificant increase in the volumetric overlap of the T1C+ changes and BD volumes was also observed. No correlation was observed between the total volume of BD110%, BD105%, or physical dose 105% and the development of imaging changes. CONCLUSIONS: Within our pediatric brain tumor population treated with spot-scanning proton therapy, our BD model demonstrated superior volumetric overlap with posttreatment T2 changes compared with the TPD model. Using a BD model in treatment planning for spot-scanning proton therapy may help avoid delivery of excessive BD to critical structures and may help minimize the risk of radiation-related late effects.
Authors: Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Michael G Espey; Ceferino Obcemea; Jacek Capala; Mansoor Ahmed; Pataje G Prasanna; Bhadrasain Vikram; Julie A Hong; Beverly Teicher; Molykutty J Aryankalayil; Michelle A Bylicky; C Norman Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Jiheon Song; Saif Aljabab; Lulwah Abduljabbar; Yolanda D Tseng; Jason K Rockhill; James R Fink; Lynn Chang; Lia M Halasz Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.130