Whole-ventricular irradiation for intracranial germ cell tumors: Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam scanned protons, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy.
CSI, craniospinal irradiation
Dose comparison study
Dp, prescribed PTV dose
IGCT, intracranial germ cell tumors
IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy
NOAR, neurofunctional organs at risk
Neurocognition brain structures
PBS-PT, pencil beam scanning proton therapy
Pediatric germ cell tumor
Pencil beam scanned proton therapy
TVC, target volume coverage
VMAT, volumetric-modulated arc therapy
Volumetric-modulated arc therapy
WV-RT/TB, whole-ventricular irradiation followed by a boost to the tumor bed
Journal
Clinical and translational radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6308
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101713416
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
01
10
2018
revised:
04
01
2019
accepted:
06
01
2019
entrez:
9
2
2019
pubmed:
9
2
2019
medline:
9
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Whole-ventricular radiotherapy (WV-RT) followed by a boost to the tumor bed (WV-RT/TB) is recommended for intracranial germ cell tumors (IGCT). As the critical brain areas are mainly in the target volume vicinity, it is unclear if protons indeed substantially spare neurofunctional organs at risk (NOAR). Therefore, a dosimetric comparison study of WV-RT/TB was conducted to assess whether proton or photon radiotherapy achieves better NOAR sparing. Eleven children with GCT received 24 Gy(RBE) WV-RT and a boost up to 40 Gy(RBE) in 25 fractions of 1.6 Gy(RBE) with pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for these patients. NOAR were delineated and treatment plans were compared for target volume coverage (TVC), homogeneity index (HI), inhomogeneity coefficient (IC) and (N)OAR sparing. TVC was comparable for all three modalities. Compared to IMRT and VMAT, PBS-PT showed statistically significant optimized IC, as well as dose reduction, among others, in mean and integral dose to the: normal brain (-35.2%, -32.7%; -35.2%, -33.0%, respectively), cerebellum (-53.7%, -33.1%; -53.6%, -32.7%) and right temporal lobe (-14.5%, -31.9%; -14.7%, -29.9%). The Willis' circle was better protected with PBS-PT than IMRT (-7.1%; -7.8%). The left hippocampus sparing was higher with IMRT. Compared to VMAT, the dose to the hippocampi, amygdalae and temporal lobes was significantly decreased in the IMRT plans. Dosimetric comparison of WV-RT/TB in IGCT suggests PBS-PT's advantage over photons in conformality and NOAR sparing, whereas IMRT's superiority over VMAT, thus potentially minimizing long-term sequelae.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Whole-ventricular radiotherapy (WV-RT) followed by a boost to the tumor bed (WV-RT/TB) is recommended for intracranial germ cell tumors (IGCT). As the critical brain areas are mainly in the target volume vicinity, it is unclear if protons indeed substantially spare neurofunctional organs at risk (NOAR). Therefore, a dosimetric comparison study of WV-RT/TB was conducted to assess whether proton or photon radiotherapy achieves better NOAR sparing.
METHODS
METHODS
Eleven children with GCT received 24 Gy(RBE) WV-RT and a boost up to 40 Gy(RBE) in 25 fractions of 1.6 Gy(RBE) with pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for these patients. NOAR were delineated and treatment plans were compared for target volume coverage (TVC), homogeneity index (HI), inhomogeneity coefficient (IC) and (N)OAR sparing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
TVC was comparable for all three modalities. Compared to IMRT and VMAT, PBS-PT showed statistically significant optimized IC, as well as dose reduction, among others, in mean and integral dose to the: normal brain (-35.2%, -32.7%; -35.2%, -33.0%, respectively), cerebellum (-53.7%, -33.1%; -53.6%, -32.7%) and right temporal lobe (-14.5%, -31.9%; -14.7%, -29.9%). The Willis' circle was better protected with PBS-PT than IMRT (-7.1%; -7.8%). The left hippocampus sparing was higher with IMRT. Compared to VMAT, the dose to the hippocampi, amygdalae and temporal lobes was significantly decreased in the IMRT plans.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Dosimetric comparison of WV-RT/TB in IGCT suggests PBS-PT's advantage over photons in conformality and NOAR sparing, whereas IMRT's superiority over VMAT, thus potentially minimizing long-term sequelae.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30734001
doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.01.002
pii: S2405-6308(18)30095-8
pmc: PMC6357692
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
53-61Références
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2585-92
pubmed: 10561326
Cancer Treat Rev. 2000 Aug;26(4):233-42
pubmed: 10913379
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Mar 15;49(4):1079-92
pubmed: 11240250
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1265-70
pubmed: 12128128
Med Phys. 2003 Aug;30(8):2065-71
pubmed: 12945972
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Mar 15;58(4):1165-70
pubmed: 15001260
Radiat Environ Biophys. 1992;31(3):251-6
pubmed: 1502334
Radiother Oncol. 2004 Jun;71(3):251-8
pubmed: 15172139
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Dec 1;63(5):1546-54
pubmed: 16115736
Strahlenther Onkol. 2006 Nov;182(11):647-52
pubmed: 17072522
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Apr 1;70(5):1530-6
pubmed: 18207670
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008 Apr;20(3):253-60
pubmed: 18261891
Pituitary. 2009;12(1):40-50
pubmed: 18270844
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 Jul;51(1):110-7
pubmed: 18306274
Oncologist. 2008 Jun;13(6):690-9
pubmed: 18586924
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jan 1;79(1):121-9
pubmed: 20452141
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Sep 1;81(1):126-34
pubmed: 20708851
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Nov;12(11):1173-86
pubmed: 20716593
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Jan;98(1):87-92
pubmed: 21159398
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 15;82(4):1341-51
pubmed: 21669501
Br J Radiol. 2011 Nov;84(1007):967-96
pubmed: 22011829
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Nov 1;84(3):632-8
pubmed: 22420962
Ann ICRP. 2012 Feb;41(1-2):1-322
pubmed: 22925378
Neuro Oncol. 2013 Mar;15(3):360-9
pubmed: 23322748
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Jul 15;86(4):643-8
pubmed: 23623405
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Oct 7;59(19):5903-19
pubmed: 25211629
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 10;33(5):492-500
pubmed: 25559807
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Feb;114(2):230-8
pubmed: 25701297
Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jun 26;10:135
pubmed: 26112360
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016 Apr;63(4):646-51
pubmed: 26703370
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Feb 1;94(2):297-304
pubmed: 26853338
Cancer Radiother. 2016 May;20(3):210-6
pubmed: 27080575
Strahlenther Onkol. 2016 Nov;192(11):770-779
pubmed: 27334276
Strahlenther Onkol. 2016 Nov;192(11):759-769
pubmed: 27363701
Cancer. 2017 Jan 1;123(1):161-168
pubmed: 27571577
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Feb 1;97(2):278-286
pubmed: 28068236
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Feb;18(2):e91-e100
pubmed: 28214420
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2017 Nov 23;8:22-26
pubmed: 29594239
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2016 Sep 26;1:9-14
pubmed: 29657988
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jul;128(1):26-36
pubmed: 29779919
Med Phys. 2018 Jul 10;:null
pubmed: 29992587
Oral Oncol. 2018 Nov;86:8-18
pubmed: 30409324
Med Phys. 1995 Jan;22(1):37-53
pubmed: 7715569
J Neurosurg. 1997 Mar;86(3):446-55
pubmed: 9046301