Hemalatha Athiyaman1, Athiyaman Mayilvaganan1, Arun Chougule2, Mary Joan2, Harvinder Singh Kumar3. 1. Department of Radiological Physics, SP Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. 2. Department of Radiological Physics, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, SP Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India.
Abstract
AIM: To estimate and compare the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of radiation-induced second cancer (SC) in pediatric medulloblastoma patients planned with institutional 3D conformal field matching method, gap junction method and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). BACKGROUND: The epidemiological studies on childhood cancer survivors reported that long-term cancer survivors who received radiotherapy are at a significantly increased risk for the development of SC. Hence, the increased concern to predict the SC risk for long-term survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In addition to institutional field matching planning method, IMRT and gap junction methods were created for ten pediatric medulloblastoma patients. The risk estimates were made based on the site-specific cancer risk coefficient provided by the BEIR VII committee according to the organ equivalent dose for various critical organs. Also, plans were compared for target volume dose distribution and dose received by critical organs. RESULTS: When compared to the gap junction method, the IMRT and institutional field matching method were superior in normal tissue sparing and dose conformity. However, highly significant volume of low dose associated with IMRT was the main concern for the SC risk. The accumulated LAR for all the critical organs with 3D conformal gap junction and IMRT method was 23-25% while for the 3D conformal field matching method it was 21%. CONCLUSION: The LAR associated with the institutional field matching technique was substantially lower. As this method is highly robust and easy to set up, it can be a better choice of a craniospinal irradiation technique where 3DCRT is the only choice of treatment.
AIM: To estimate and compare the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of radiation-induced second cancer (SC) in pediatric medulloblastoma patients planned with institutional 3D conformal field matching method, gap junction method and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). BACKGROUND: The epidemiological studies on childhood cancer survivors reported that long-term cancer survivors who received radiotherapy are at a significantly increased risk for the development of SC. Hence, the increased concern to predict the SC risk for long-term survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In addition to institutional field matching planning method, IMRT and gap junction methods were created for ten pediatric medulloblastoma patients. The risk estimates were made based on the site-specific cancer risk coefficient provided by the BEIR VII committee according to the organ equivalent dose for various critical organs. Also, plans were compared for target volume dose distribution and dose received by critical organs. RESULTS: When compared to the gap junction method, the IMRT and institutional field matching method were superior in normal tissue sparing and dose conformity. However, highly significant volume of low dose associated with IMRT was the main concern for the SC risk. The accumulated LAR for all the critical organs with 3D conformal gap junction and IMRT method was 23-25% while for the 3D conformal field matching method it was 21%. CONCLUSION: The LAR associated with the institutional field matching technique was substantially lower. As this method is highly robust and easy to set up, it can be a better choice of a craniospinal irradiation technique where 3DCRT is the only choice of treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
BEIR; Craniospinal irradiation; Field matching; Organ equivalent dose; Second cancer
Authors: Eugene Huang; Bin S Teh; Douglas R Strother; Quillin G Davis; J Kam Chiu; Hsin H Lu; L Steven Carpenter; Wei Yuan Mai; Murali M Chintagumpala; Michael South; Walter H Grant; E Brian Butler; Shiao Y Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C Metayer; C F Lynch; E A Clarke; B Glimelius; H Storm; E Pukkala; T Joensuu; F E van Leeuwen; M B van't Veer; R E Curtis; E J Holowaty; M Andersson; T Wiklund; M Gospodarowicz; L B Travis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Garwicz; H Anderson; J H Olsen; H Døllner; H Hertz; G Jonmundsson; F Langmark; M Lanning; T Möller; R Sankila; H Tulinius Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-11-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Yutaka Yasui; Leslie L Robison; Jillian M Birch; Monica K Bogue; Lisa Diller; Cyndi DeLaat; Franca Fossati-Bellani; Elaine Morgan; Odile Oberlin; Gregory Reaman; Frederick B Ruymann; Jean Tersak; Anna T Meadows Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ann C Mertens; Yutaka Yasui; Yan Liu; Marilyn Stovall; Ray Hutchinson; Jill Ginsberg; Charles Sklar; Leslie L Robison Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Natalia Matuszak; Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska; Agnieszka Skrobala; Adam Ryczkowski; Piotr Romanski; Igor Piotrowski; Katarzyna Kulcenty; Wiktoria Maria Suchorska; Julian Malicki Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-06-08