Patterns of failure in pediatric medulloblastoma and implications for hippocampal sparing.

BACKGROUND: Hippocampal avoidance (HA) has been shown to preserve cognitive function in adult patients with cancer treated with whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases. However, the feasibility of HA in pediatric patients with brain tumors has not been explored because of concerns of increased risk of relapse in the peri-hippocampal region. Our aim was to determine patterns of recurrence and incidence of peri-hippocampal relapse in pediatric patients with medulloblastoma (MB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified pediatric patients with MB treated with protons between 2002 and 2016 and who had recurrent disease. To estimate the risk of peri-hippocampal recurrence, three hippocampal zones (HZs) were delineated corresponding to ≤5 mm (HZ-1), 6 to 10 mm (HZ-2), and >10 mm (HZ-3) distance of the recurrence from the contoured hippocampi. To determine the feasibility of HA, three standard-risk patients with MB were planned using either volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients developed a recurrence at a median of 1.6 years. Of the 25 patients who had magnetic resonance imaging of the recurrence, no patients failed within the hippocampus and only two patients failed within HZ-1. The crude incidence of peri-hippocampal failure was 8%. Both HA-VMAT and HA-IMPT plans were associated with significantly reduced mean dose to the hippocampi (p < .05). HA-VMAT and HA-IMPT plans were associated with decreased percentage of the third and lateral ventricles receiving the prescription craniospinal dose of 23.4 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-hippocampal failures are uncommon in pediatric patients with MB. Hippocampal avoidance should be evaluated in a prospective cohort of pediatric patients with MB. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In this study, the patterns of disease recurrence in patients with a pediatric brain tumor known as medulloblastoma treated with proton radiotherapy were examined. The majority of failures occur outside of an important structure related to memory formation called the hippocampus. Hippocampal sparing radiation plans using proton radiotherapy were generated and showed that dose to the hippocampus was able to be significantly reduced. The study provides the rationale to explore hippocampal sparing in pediatric medulloblastoma in a prospective clinical trial.

Acute gastrointestinal toxicity and bowel bag dose-volume parameters for preoperative radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity has been studied in GI and gynecological (GYN) cancers, with volume receiving 15 Gy (V15) <830 mL, V25 <650 mL, and V45 <195 mL identified as dose constraints for the peritoneal space (bowel bag [BB]). There are no reported constraints derived from retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), and prospective trials for RPS have adopted some of the GI and GYN constraints. This study quantified GI toxicity during preoperative radiation therapy (RT) for RPS, assessed toxicity using published constraints, and evaluated predictors for toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2003 to 2013, 56 patients with RPS underwent preoperative RT at 2 institutions. Toxicity was scored using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria for upper and lower acute GI toxicity. BB was contoured on planning computed tomography scans per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group atlas guidelines with review by a radiologist. Relationships among toxicity, clinical factors, and BB dose were analyzed. RESULTS: Three patients (5%) developed grade ≥3 acute GI toxicity: 2 grade 3 toxicities (anorexia and nausea) and 1 grade 5 toxicity (tumor-bowel fistula). Thirty-six patients (64%) had grade 2 toxicity (nausea, 55%; diarrhea, 23%; pain, 20%). Tumor size was the only significant clinical predictor of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity. Larger mean BB volumes predicted for grade ≥2 toxicity (P = .001). On receiver operating characteristics analysis, V30 was the best discriminator for toxicity (P = .0001). Median BB V15 was 1375 mL; 75% of patients had V15 ≥830 mL. Median V25 was 1083 mL; 68% had V25 ≥650 mL. Median V45 was 575 mL; 82% had V45 ≥195 mL. V25 ≥650 mL was significantly associated with grade ≥2 toxicity (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with preoperative RT for RPS, significant acute GI toxicity was very low despite BB dose exceeding established constraints for most cases. Acceptable dose constraints for RPS may be higher than those for GI or GYN cancers. Further assessment of dose-volume constraints for RPS is needed.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. IMRT for the treatment of distal esophageal cancer.

Several studies have demonstrated that volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the ability to reduce monitor units and treatment time when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aims to demonstrate that VMAT is able to provide adequate organs at risk (OAR) sparing and planning target volume (PTV) coverage for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus while reducing monitor units and treatment time. Fourteen patients having been treated previously for esophageal cancer were planned using both VMAT and IMRT techniques. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several OARs, as well as coverage of the PTV. Treatment times were assessed by recording the number of monitor units required for dose delivery. Body V(5) was also recorded to evaluate the increased volume of healthy tissue irradiated to low doses. Dosimetric differences in OAR sparing between VMAT and IMRT were comparable. PTV coverage was similar for the 2 techniques but it was found that IMRT was capable of delivering a slightly more homogenous dose distribution. Of the 14 patients, 12 were treated with a single arc and 2 were treated with a double arc. Single-arc plans reduced monitor units by 42% when compared with the IMRT plans. Double-arc plans reduced monitor units by 67% when compared with IMRT. The V(5) for the body was found to be 18% greater for VMAT than for IMRT. VMAT has the capability to decrease treatment times over IMRT while still providing similar OAR sparing and PTV coverage. Although there will be a smaller risk of patient movement during VMAT treatments, this advantage comes at the cost of delivering small doses to a greater volume of the patient.