Clinical practice in European centres treating paediatric posterior fossa tumours with pencil beam scanning proton therapy
Language English Country Ireland Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study
PubMed
38942120
DOI
10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110414
PII: S0167-8140(24)00684-4
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Radiotherapy Dosage * MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Infratentorial Neoplasms * radiotherapy MeSH
- Organs at Risk radiation effects MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Brain Stem radiation effects MeSH
- Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted * methods MeSH
- Child, Preschool MeSH
- Proton Therapy * methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Child, Preschool MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe MeSH
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As no guidelines for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT) of paediatric posterior fossa (PF) tumours exist to date, this study investigated planning techniques across European PT centres, with special considerations for brainstem and spinal cord sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey and a treatment planning comparison were initiated across nineteen European PBS-PT centres treating paediatric patients. The survey assessed all aspects of the treatment chain, including but not limited to delineations, dose constraints and treatment planning. Each centre planned two PF tumour cases for focal irradiation, according to their own clinical practice but based on common delineations. The prescription dose was 54 Gy(RBE) for Case 1 and 59.4 Gy(RBE) for Case 2. For both cases, planning strategies and relevant dose metrics were compared. RESULTS: Seventeen (89 %) centres answered the survey, and sixteen (80 %) participated in the treatment planning comparison. In the survey, thirteen (68 %) centres reported using the European Particle Therapy Network definition for brainstem delineation. In the treatment planning study, while most centres used three beam directions, their configurations varied widely across centres. Large variations were also seen in brainstem doses, with a brainstem near maximum dose (D2%) ranging from 52.7 Gy(RBE) to 55.7 Gy(RBE) (Case 1), and from 56.8 Gy(RBE) to 60.9 Gy(RBE) (Case 2). CONCLUSION: This study assessed the European PBS-PT planning of paediatric PF tumours. Agreement was achieved in e.g. delineation-practice, while wider variations were observed in planning approach and consequently dose to organs at risk. Collaboration between centres is still ongoing, striving towards common guidelines.
Centre Antoine Lacassagne Department of Radiation Oncology Nice France
Centre Regional Francois Baclesse Department of Radiation Oncology Caen France
Centro de Protonterapia Quironsalud Madrid Spain
Clínica Universidad de Navarra Proton Therapy Unit Madrid Spain
Danish Centre for Particle Therapy Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus N Denmark
Hospital S Chiara APSS Medical Physics Unit Trento Italy
Institut Curie Department of Radiation Oncology and Proton Centre Paris France
Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences Kraków Poland
Karolinska University Hospital Department of Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering Stockholm Sweden
Karolinska University Hospital Department of Radiotherapy Stockholm Sweden
MedAustron Ion Therapy Centre Department of Radiation Oncology Wiener Neustadt Austria
Paediatric Radiotherapy Unit IRCCS Foundation Institute of Cancer Milano Italy
Paul Scherrer Institute Centre for Proton Therapy ETH Domain Villigen Switzerland
Proton Therapy Centre Czech Department of Radiation Oncology Prague Czech Republic
Skåne University Hospital Hematology Oncology and Radiation Physics Lund Sweden
Trento Proton Therapy Centre epartment of Radiation Oncology APSS Trento Italy
West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen Essen Germany
West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen Essen University Hospital Essen Germany
References provided by Crossref.org