The British journal of radiology · 2026
Adaptive radiotherapy in paediatric patients: a SIOP Europe ROWG survey on practice patterns across Europe.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turcas Andrada, Bolle Stephanie, Fajardo Raquel Davila, Fiorente Mariangela, Kelly Sarah M, Lassen-Ramshad Yasmin, Ramos Monica, Seravalli Enrica, Vennarini Sabina, Laprie Anne
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is increasingly recognized for its potential to optimize treatment accuracy by adjusting to anatomical changes during therapy. In children, who are particularly sensitive to radiation-induced toxicities and experience rapid anatomical changes, ART could be especially beneficial. We conducted an online survey to assess the current state of ART in children across Europe.
METHODS: A 21-question survey regarding ART implementation, techniques, indications, and technical infrastructure was distributed online to SIOP-Europe affiliated centres.
RESULTS: Sixty responses from 18 European countries were received. ART was available for children in 68% of centres. Most frequent sites for implementation were pelvis, abdomen, and head-and-neck, with an average of 20% of respondents using ART for >75% of these cases. Higher-volume centres were more likely to implement ART (r = 0.34, P = .048). Fifteen percent performed daily adaptation, while 75% applied it only for major anatomical changes. Half of the centres used offline and 24% online ART. Specific infrastructure included Ethos (21%), MR-LINAC (5%), and Tomotherapy (13%). Automatic contouring was mostly used for OARs (57%). Barriers to implementation included a need for more evidence (50%), specialized equipment (52%) and guidelines (39%).
CONCLUSIONS: ART use in paediatric patients is highly variable and remains limited. Only a subset of centres reported routine use of ART, with notable variation in frequency and criteria for adaptation.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first Europe-wide survey to comprehensively map ART practices in paediatric oncology, revealing substantial heterogeneity and identifying key barriers to wider adoption, representing a base to guide standardization and future clinical validation.
METHODS: A 21-question survey regarding ART implementation, techniques, indications, and technical infrastructure was distributed online to SIOP-Europe affiliated centres.
RESULTS: Sixty responses from 18 European countries were received. ART was available for children in 68% of centres. Most frequent sites for implementation were pelvis, abdomen, and head-and-neck, with an average of 20% of respondents using ART for >75% of these cases. Higher-volume centres were more likely to implement ART (r = 0.34, P = .048). Fifteen percent performed daily adaptation, while 75% applied it only for major anatomical changes. Half of the centres used offline and 24% online ART. Specific infrastructure included Ethos (21%), MR-LINAC (5%), and Tomotherapy (13%). Automatic contouring was mostly used for OARs (57%). Barriers to implementation included a need for more evidence (50%), specialized equipment (52%) and guidelines (39%).
CONCLUSIONS: ART use in paediatric patients is highly variable and remains limited. Only a subset of centres reported routine use of ART, with notable variation in frequency and criteria for adaptation.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first Europe-wide survey to comprehensively map ART practices in paediatric oncology, revealing substantial heterogeneity and identifying key barriers to wider adoption, representing a base to guide standardization and future clinical validation.