Amanda E Child1, Emily A Warren2, David R Grosshans3, Arnold C Paulino3, M Fatih Okcu4, M Douglas Ris2, Anita Mahajan5, Jessica Orobio6, Paul T Cirino7, Charles G Minard8, Andres G Viana7, Johanna Bick7, Steven P Woods7, Murali Chintagumpala4, Lisa S Kahalley2. 1. Department of Neuropsychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Psychology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 7. Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 8. Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton radiotherapy (PRT) may be associated with less neurocognitive risk than photon RT (XRT) for pediatric brain tumor survivors. We compared neurocognitive and academic outcomes in long-term survivors treated with XRT versus PRT. METHODS: Survivors underwent neurocognitive evaluation >1 year after craniospinal (CSI) or focal PRT or XRT. Groups were compared using separate one-way analyses of covariance for the CSI and focal groups. RESULTS: PRT (n = 58) and XRT (n = 30) subgroups were similar on gender (66% male), age at RT (median = 6.5 years), age at follow-up (median = 14.6 years), and government assistance status (32%). PRT and XRT focal groups differed on follow-up interval, shunt history, and total RT dose (all p < .05), whereas PRT and XRT CSI groups differed on follow-up interval, baseline neurocognitive performance score, boost volume, and CSI dose (all p < .05). The PRT focal group outperformed the XRT focal group on inhibition/switching (p = .04). The PRT CSI group outperformed the XRT CSI group on inattention/impulsivity (both p < .05). Several clinical variables (i.e., RT dose, boost field, baseline performance) predicted neurocognitive outcomes (all p < .05). The PRT focal group performed comparably to population means on most neurocognitive measures, while both CSI groups performed below expectation on multiple measures. The XRT CSI group was most impaired. All groups fell below expectation on processing speed, fine motor, and academic fluency (most p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest generally favorable neurocognitive and academic long-term outcomes following focal PRT. Impairment was greatest following CSI regardless of modality. Dosimetry and baseline characteristics are important determinants of outcome alone or in combination with modality.
BACKGROUND: Proton radiotherapy (PRT) may be associated with less neurocognitive risk than photon RT (XRT) for pediatric brain tumor survivors. We compared neurocognitive and academic outcomes in long-term survivors treated with XRT versus PRT. METHODS: Survivors underwent neurocognitive evaluation >1 year after craniospinal (CSI) or focal PRT or XRT. Groups were compared using separate one-way analyses of covariance for the CSI and focal groups. RESULTS: PRT (n = 58) and XRT (n = 30) subgroups were similar on gender (66% male), age at RT (median = 6.5 years), age at follow-up (median = 14.6 years), and government assistance status (32%). PRT and XRT focal groups differed on follow-up interval, shunt history, and total RT dose (all p < .05), whereas PRT and XRT CSI groups differed on follow-up interval, baseline neurocognitive performance score, boost volume, and CSI dose (all p < .05). The PRT focal group outperformed the XRT focal group on inhibition/switching (p = .04). The PRT CSI group outperformed the XRT CSI group on inattention/impulsivity (both p < .05). Several clinical variables (i.e., RT dose, boost field, baseline performance) predicted neurocognitive outcomes (all p < .05). The PRT focal group performed comparably to population means on most neurocognitive measures, while both CSI groups performed below expectation on multiple measures. The XRT CSI group was most impaired. All groups fell below expectation on processing speed, fine motor, and academic fluency (most p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest generally favorable neurocognitive and academic long-term outcomes following focal PRT. Impairment was greatest following CSI regardless of modality. Dosimetry and baseline characteristics are important determinants of outcome alone or in combination with modality.
Authors: Donald J Mabbott; Eric Monsalves; Brenda J Spiegler; Ute Bartels; Laura Janzen; Sharon Guger; Normand Laperriere; Nicole Andrews; Eric Bouffet Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Callie W Little; Sara A Hart; Jamie M Quinn; Elliot M Tucker-Drob; Jeanette Taylor; Christopher Schatschneider Journal: Child Dev Date: 2016-11-10
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: Lisa S Kahalley; M Douglas Ris; Anita Mahajan; M Fatih Okcu; Murali Chintagumpala; Arnold C Paulino; William E Whitehead; Charles G Minard; Heather H Stancel; Jessica Orobio; Judy J Xue; Emily A Warren; David R Grosshans Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 12.300
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: 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: Nicholas Major; Neal A Patel; Josiah Bennett; Ena Novakovic; Dana Poloni; Mickey Abraham; Nolan J Brown; Julian L Gendreau; Ronald Sahyouni; Joshua Loya Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-27