Surface guided radiotherapy practice in paediatric oncology: a survey on behalf of the SIOPE Radiation Oncology Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: Surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) is increasingly being implemented to track patient's surface movement and position during radiation therapy. However, limited information is available on the SGRT use in paediatrics. The aim of this double survey was to map SIOPE (European Society for Paediatric Oncology)-affiliated centres using SGRT and to gain information on potential indications, observed, or expected benefits. METHODS: A double online survey was distributed to 246 SIOPE-affiliated radiotherapy (RT) centres. Multiple choices, yes/no, and open answers were included. The first survey (41 questions) was active from February to March 2021. A shortened version (13 questions) was repeated in March 2023 to detect trends in SGRT use within the same community. RESULTS: Respectively, 76/142 (54%) and 28/142 (20%) responding centres used and planned to use SGRT clinically, including 4/34 (12%) new centres since 2021. Among the SGRT users, 33/76 (43%) already applied this technology to paediatric treatments. The main benefits of improved patient comfort, better monitoring of intrafraction motion, and more accurate initial patient set-up expected by future users did not differ from current SGRT-users (P = .893). Among non-SGRT users, the main hurdles to implement SGRT were costs and time for installation. In paediatrics, SGRT is applied to all anatomical sites. CONCLUSION: This work provides information on the practice of SGRT in paediatrics across SIOPE-affiliated RT centres which can serve as a basis for departments when considering the purchase of SGRT systems. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Since little information is available in the literature on the use of SGRT in paediatrics, the results of this double survey can serve as a basis for departments treating children when considering the purchase of an SGRT system.

Paediatric radiotherapy in the United Kingdom: an evolving subspecialty and a paradigm for integrated teamworking in oncology.

Many different malignancies occur in children, but overall, cancer in childhood is rare. Survival rates have improved appreciably and are higher compared with most adult tumour types. Treatment schedules evolve as a result of clinical trials and are typically complex and multi-modality, with radiotherapy an integral component of many. Risk stratification in paediatric oncology is increasingly refined, resulting in a more personalized use of radiation. Every available modality of radiation delivery: simple and advanced photon techniques, proton beam therapy, molecular radiotherapy, and brachytherapy, have their place in the treatment of children's cancers. Radiotherapy is rarely the sole treatment. As local therapy, it is often given before or after surgery, so the involvement of the surgeon is critically important, particularly when brachytherapy is used. Systemic treatment is the standard of care for most paediatric tumour types, concomitant administration of chemotherapy is typical, and immunotherapy has an increasing role. Delivery of radiotherapy is not done by clinical or radiation oncologists alone; play specialists and anaesthetists are required, together with mould room staff, to ensure compliance and immobilization. The support of clinical radiologists is needed to ensure the correct interpretation of imaging for target volume delineation. Physicists and dosimetrists ensure the optimal dose distribution, minimizing exposure of organs at risk. Paediatric oncology doctors, nurses, and a range of allied health professionals are needed for the holistic wrap-around care of the child and family. Radiographers are essential at every step of the way. With increasing complexity comes a need for greater centralization of services.

Contemporary paediatric radiation oncology.

Treatment with ionising radiation is a valuable component of treatment schedules for a many children and young people with cancer. While some form of radiotherapy has been in use for over 100 years, a series of innovations has revolutionised paediatric radiation oncology. Mostly, high-energy X-ray photons are used, but proton beam radiotherapy is increasingly offered, especially in children and young people. This is to reduce the radiation exposure of healthy normal tissues and so the likelihood of adverse effects. Other methods of radiotherapy delivery include brachytherapy and molecular radiotherapy. The most appropriate treatment technique should be selected for every child. Advances in computers and imaging, developments in the technology of radiation delivery and a better understanding of pathology and molecular biology of cancer, coupled with parallel improvements in surgery and systemic therapy, have led to a transformation of practice in recent decades. Initially an empirical art form, radiotherapy for children has become a technically advanced, evidence-based cornerstone of increasingly personalised cancer medicine with solid scientific foundations. Late sequelae of treatment-the adverse effects once accepted as the cost of cure-have been significantly reduced in parallel with increased survival rates. The delivery of radiotherapy to children and young people requires a specialised multiprofessional team including radiation oncologists, therapeutic radiographers, play specialists and physicists among others. This article reviews the types of radiotherapy now available and outlines the pathway of the child through treatment. It aims to demonstrate to paediatricians how contemporary paediatric radiation oncology differs from past practice.

The spleen as an organ at risk in paediatric radiotherapy: A SIOP-Europe Radiation Oncology Working Group report.

BACKGROUND: Radiation may cause long-term splenic dysfunction, risking potentially fatal late sepsis. We aimed to review this complication's magnitude in paediatric radiotherapy and gauge the level of awareness of the spleen as an organ at risk. METHODS: Clinical trial protocols and radiotherapy guidelines, patient/parent information sheets, and professional guidance documents were reviewed to assess the perceived risk of radiotherapy-related splenic dysfunction. Paediatric oncologists and paediatric radiation oncologists across Europe were surveyed to estimate the level of understanding of this risk and to ascertain current practice. Spleen doses received in practice were examined. A systematic review of relevant publications was undertaken. RESULTS: The risk is not mentioned in most clinical trials, patient information leaflets, or professional guidance documents. When mentioned, a threshold dose of 40 Gy is cited. The survey showed only limited awareness. More than half of patients assessed received spleen doses in excess of 10 Gy. The systematic review identified one paper reporting a relative mortality risk of 5.5 with spleen doses in the 10-20 Gy range. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of mortality from overwhelming infection is poorly recognised. We therefore recommend routine delineation of the spleen. Protocols and guidelines should give a spleen dose objective as low as reasonably achievable, ideally mean <10 Gy without compromise to target volumes. Revised evidence-based guidelines and continuing professional development activities should inform oncologists. Patient/parent information should mention the risk and the dose received be communicated to colleagues. Antibiotic prophylaxis and/or (re)vaccination should be considered if the mean spleen dose is ≥10 Gy.