| Literature DB >> 35545828 |
Nalee Kim1, Do Hoon Lim2.
Abstract
Optic pathway glioma (OPG) is a rare tumor located in optic nerve, optic tract, or optic chiasm. Treatment options for OPG include surgery, radiation therapy (RT), and chemotherapy. Although RT may provide favorable long-term outcomes in manner of either adjuvant or salvage aim, chemotherapy-first approach is increasingly performed due to possible late effects of RT. Proton beam RT may allow normal tissue sparing of radiation exposure compared to conventional X-ray treatment. Therefore, proton beam RT is expected to reduce complications from RT. This review discusses the recent updates on oncologic outcomes of OPG, late toxicities following RT, and compares the outcomes between X-ray treatment and proton beam RT.Entities:
Keywords: Brain Neoplasms; Child; Optic glioma; Proton radiotherapy; Radiation therapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35545828 PMCID: PMC9098980 DOI: 10.14791/btrt.2022.0003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Tumor Res Treat ISSN: 2288-2405
Clinical outcomes for OPG following RT
| Study | Patients (n) | OPG | RT | Total dose | Definition of progression | PFS | OS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only OPG | ||||||||
| Tao et al. [ | 29 | 29 (100%) | X-ray | 54 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 10 yr 89% | 10 yr 100% | |
| Cappelli et al. [ | 53 | 53 (100%) | X-ray | 50–55 Gy | Visual symptom | 10 yr 66% | 10 yr 83% | |
| Radiologic assessment | ||||||||
| Grabenbauer et al. [ | 25 | 25 (100%) | X-ray | 45–60 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 10 yr 69% | 10 yr 94% | |
| Combs et al. [ | 15 | 15 (100%) | X-ray | 52.2 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 5 yr 72% | 5 yr 90% | |
| Tsang et al. [ | 89 | 89 (100%) | X-ray | 54 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 10 yr 62%–68% | 10 yr 92%–98% | |
| Secondary malignancy | ||||||||
| Acharya et al. [ | 41 | 41 (100%) | X-ray | 54 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 5 yr 84% | - | |
| Mixed OPG and other low-grade glioma | ||||||||
| Marcus et al. [ | 81 | 37 (46%) | X-ray | 52.2 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 5 yr 83%, 8 yr 65% | 5 yr 98%, 8 yr 82% | |
| Oh et al. [ | 181 | 62 (34%) | X-ray | 54–57 Gy | Neurologic symptom | 8 yr 39% | 8 yr 94% | |
| Radiologic assessment | ||||||||
| Raikar et al. [ | 17 | 6 (35%) | X-ray | 50–54 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 3 yr 69%, 10 yr 46% | 10 yr 100% | |
| Cherlow et al. [ | 85 | 37 (44%) | X-ray | 54 Gy | Radiologic assessment | 3 yr 77%, 5 yr 71% | 3 yr 94%, 5 yr 93% | |
| Greenberger et al. [ | 32 | Unknown | Proton | 52.5 GyRBE | Radiologic assessment | 8 yr 83% | 8 yr 100% | |
| Indelicato et al. [ | 174 | 101 (58%) | Proton | 54 GyRBE | Radiologic assessment | 5 yr 88% | 5 yr 93% | |
OPG, optic pathway glioma; RT, radiation therapy; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival. RBE, relative biological effectiveness
Toxicities outcomes following RT
| Study | Proportion of OPG | RT | PsPD | Visual deficiency | Vasculopathy | Endocrine deficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only OPG | |||||||
| Tao et al. [ | 29 (100%) | X-ray | 17% | 72% | |||
| Cappelli et al. [ | 53 (100%) | X-ray | 17% | ||||
| Grabenbauer et al. [ | 25 (100%) | X-ray | 12% | 48% | |||
| Combs et al. [ | 15 (100%) | X-ray | 7% | 13% | |||
| Tsang et al. [ | 89 (100%) | X-ray | 10 yr 29% | 10 yr 7% | |||
| Acharya et al. [ | 41 (100%) | X-ray | 5yr 12% | ||||
| Hanania et al. [ | 38 (100%) | Proton | Blind-free survival 100% | ||||
| Awdeh et al. [ | 20 (100%) | X-ray | 25% (best eye) | ||||
| 50% (worst eye) | |||||||
| Kestle et al. [ | 28 (100%) | X-ray | 18% | ||||
| Mixed OPG and other low-grade glioma | |||||||
| Marcus et al. [ | 37 (46%) | X-ray | 5% | ||||
| Cherlow et al. [ | 37 (44%) | X-ray | 2% | 2% | |||
| Greenberger et al. [ | Unknown (n=32) | Proton | 17% (decline) | 6% | 31% | ||
| Indelicato et al. [ | 101 (58%) | Proton | 32% | 1% | 3% | 22% | |
| Ludmir et al. [ | 29 (35%) | X-ray/proton | 25%/45% | ||||
| Hall et al. [ | Unknown (n=644) | X-ray | 2.6% | ||||
| Bavle et al. [ | Unknown (n=81) | Proton | 9.9% (severe 6.2%) | ||||
OPG, optic pathway glioma; RT, radiation therapy; PsPD, pseudoprogression
Fig. 1Plan comparison according to radiation therapy (RT) modality. RT planning using 2-dimensional photon RT (A), 3-diensional conformal photon RT (B), intensity-modulated photon RT (C), and proton beam RT (D). Proton beam have better dose conformity to target area and lower radiation dose distribution to normal brain (e.g., temporal lobe) than photon RT.