Radiobiological risk estimates of adverse events and secondary cancer for proton and photon radiation therapy of pediatric medulloblastoma

Introduction. The aim of this model study was to estimate and compare the risk of radiation-induced adverse late effects in pediatric patients with medulloblastoma (MB) treated with either three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT), inversely-optimized arc therapy (RapidArc (R) (RA)) or spot-scanned intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). The aim was also to find dose-volume toxicity parameters relevant to children undergoing RT to be used in the inverse planning of RA and IMPT, and to use in the risk estimations. Material and methods. Treatment plans were created for all three techniques on 10 pediatric patients that have been treated with craniospinal irradiation (CSI) at our institution in 2007-2009. Plans were generated for two prescription CSI doses, 23.4 Gy and 36 Gy. Risk estimates were based on childhood cancer survivor data when available and secondary cancer (SC) risks were estimated as a function of age at exposure and attained age according to the organ-equivalent dose (OED) concept. Results. Estimates of SC risk was higher for the RA plans and differentiable from the estimates for 3D CRT at attained ages above 40 years. The risk of developing heart failure, hearing loss, hypothyroidism and xerostomia was highest for the 3D CRT plans. The risks of all adverse effects were estimated as lowest for the IMPT plans, even when including secondary neutron (SN) irradiation with high values of the neutron radiation weighting factors (WRneutron). Conclusions. When comparing RA and 3D CRT treatment for pediatric MB it is a matter of comparing higher SC risk against higher risks of non-cancer adverse events. Considering time until onset of the different complications is necessary to fully assess patient benefit in such a comparison. The IMPT plans, including SN dose contribution, compared favorably to the photon techniques in terms of all radiobiological risk estimates

Interobserver delineation uncertainty in involved-node radiation therapy (INRT) for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: on behalf of the Radiotherapy Committee of the EORTC lymphoma group

Contains fulltext : 173026.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) the target volume nowadays consists of the volume of the originally involved nodes. Delineation of this volume on a post-chemotherapy CT-scan is challenging. We report on the interobserver variability in target volume definition and its impact on resulting treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two representative cases were selected (1: male, stage IB, localization: left axilla; 2: female, stage IIB, localizations: mediastinum and bilateral neck). Eight experienced observers individually defined the clinical target volume (CTV) using involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) as defined by the EORTC-GELA guidelines for the H10 trial. A consensus contour was generated and the standard deviation computed. We investigated the overlap between observer and consensus contour [Sorensen-Dice coefficient (DSC)] and the magnitude of gross deviations between the surfaces of the observer and consensus contour (Hausdorff distance). 3D-conformal (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were calculated for each contour in order to investigate the impact of interobserver variability on each treatment modality. Similar target coverage was enforced for all plans. RESULTS: The median CTV was 120 cm3 (IQR: 95-173 cm3) for Case 1, and 255 cm3 (IQR: 183-293 cm3) for Case 2. DSC values were generally high (>0.7), and Hausdorff distances were about 30 mm. The SDs between all observer contours, providing an estimate of the systematic error associated with delineation uncertainty, ranged from 1.9 to 3.8 mm (median: 3.2 mm). Variations in mean dose resulting from different observer contours were small and were not higher in IMRT plans than in 3D-CRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: We observed considerable differences in target volume delineation, but the systematic delineation uncertainty of around 3 mm is comparable to that reported in other tumour sites. This report is a first step towards calculating an evidence-based planning target volume margin for INRT in HL

PET/CT-guided treatment planning for paediatric cancer patients: a simulation study of proton and conventional photon therapy

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of including fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in the planning of paediatric radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Target volumes were first delineated without and subsequently re-delineated with access to (18)F-FDG PET scan information, on duplicate CT sets. RT plans were generated for three-dimensional conformal photon RT (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). The results were evaluated by comparison of target volumes, target dose coverage parameters, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and estimated risk of secondary cancer (SC). RESULTS: Considerable deviations between CT- and PET/CT-guided target volumes were seen in 3 out of the 11 patients studied. However, averaging over the whole cohort, CT or PET/CT guidance introduced no significant difference in the shape or size of the target volumes, target dose coverage, irradiated volumes, estimated NTCP or SC risk, neither for IMPT nor 3DCRT. CONCLUSION: Our results imply that the inclusion of PET/CT scans in the RT planning process could have considerable impact for individual patients. There were no general trends of increasing or decreasing irradiated volumes, suggesting that the long-term morbidity of RT in childhood would on average remain largely unaffected. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (18)F-FDG PET-based RT planning does not systematically change NTCP or SC risk for paediatric cancer patients compared with CT only. 3 out of 11 patients had a distinct change of target volumes when PET-guided planning was introduced. Dice and mismatch metrics are not sufficient to assess the consequences of target volume differences in the context of RT