Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023
Delivery of re-irradiation and complex palliative radiotherapy using proton therapy in pediatric cancer patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Berlin Eva, Eisenberg Rachel, Hill-Kayser Christine, Lustig Robert A, Kurtz Goldie, Cummings Elizabeth, LaRiviere Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The intent of this study is to characterize indications for pediatric palliative-intent proton radiation therapy (PIPRT).
PROCEDURE: We retrospectively reviewed patients 21 years and younger who received PIPRT. We defined PIPRT as radiotherapy (RT) aimed to improve cancer-related symptoms/provide durable local control in the non-curative setting. Mixed proton/photon plans were included. Adjacent re-irradiation (reRT) was defined as a reRT volume within the incidental dose cloud of a prior RT target, whereas direct reRT was defined as in-field overlap with prior RT target. Acute toxicity during RT until first inspection visit was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The Kaplan-Meier method, measured from last PIPRT fraction, was used to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: Eighteen patients underwent PIPRT between 2014 and 2020. Median age at treatment start was 10 years [2-21]. Median follow-up was 8.2 months [0-48]. Treatment sites included: brain/spine [10], abdomen/pelvis [3], thorax [3], and head/neck [2]. Indications for palliation included: durable tumor control [18], neurologic symptoms [4], pain [3], airway compromise [2], and great vessel compression [1]. Indications for protons included: reRT [15] (three adjacent, 12 direct), craniospinal irradiation [4], reduction of dose to normal tissues [3]. Sixteen experienced grade (G) 1-2 toxicity; two G3. There were no reports of radionecrosis. Median PFS was 5.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-16.3]. Median OS was 8.3 months [95% CI: 5.5-26.3].
CONCLUSIONS: The most common indication for PIPRT was reRT to provide durable tumor control. PIPRT appears to be safe, with no cases of high-grade toxicity.
PROCEDURE: We retrospectively reviewed patients 21 years and younger who received PIPRT. We defined PIPRT as radiotherapy (RT) aimed to improve cancer-related symptoms/provide durable local control in the non-curative setting. Mixed proton/photon plans were included. Adjacent re-irradiation (reRT) was defined as a reRT volume within the incidental dose cloud of a prior RT target, whereas direct reRT was defined as in-field overlap with prior RT target. Acute toxicity during RT until first inspection visit was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The Kaplan-Meier method, measured from last PIPRT fraction, was used to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: Eighteen patients underwent PIPRT between 2014 and 2020. Median age at treatment start was 10 years [2-21]. Median follow-up was 8.2 months [0-48]. Treatment sites included: brain/spine [10], abdomen/pelvis [3], thorax [3], and head/neck [2]. Indications for palliation included: durable tumor control [18], neurologic symptoms [4], pain [3], airway compromise [2], and great vessel compression [1]. Indications for protons included: reRT [15] (three adjacent, 12 direct), craniospinal irradiation [4], reduction of dose to normal tissues [3]. Sixteen experienced grade (G) 1-2 toxicity; two G3. There were no reports of radionecrosis. Median PFS was 5.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-16.3]. Median OS was 8.3 months [95% CI: 5.5-26.3].
CONCLUSIONS: The most common indication for PIPRT was reRT to provide durable tumor control. PIPRT appears to be safe, with no cases of high-grade toxicity.