Practical aspects of pediatric proton radiation therapy.

Many radiotherapy centers desire proton therapy (PrT) because the unique physical dosimetry allows for improved dose distribution in some clinical situations. These benefits are best described in skull base and many pediatric lesions. However, there are significant challenges to PrT that are overlooked or simply ignored when centers embark on the PrT journey particularly as it applies to pediatric patients.In this review, we review the Indiana University Health Proton Therapy Center experience regarding benefits and drawbacks of PrT for pediatric patients. In conclusion, centers aspiring to PrT capacity should be aware not only of the well-described benefits in some clinical scenarios, but also the significant challenges to the modality in its practical clinical application.

Outpatient management of vascular access devices in children receiving radiotherapy: complications and morbidity.

BACKGROUND: When treating children with cancer, long-term venous access is critical. This is especially true in the context of children receiving daily radiation therapy (RT) under general anesthesia. We have previously reported <0.1% risk of complications in complications in over 4,040 pediatric treatments under general anesthesia in our outpatient facility. Here, we present our experience with venous catheter access techniques in children receiving daily proton RT. PROCEDURE: After Institutional Review Board approval, we reviewed our center's records between September 9, 2004 and October 23, 2012 with respect to complications and morbidity of indwelling catheters in our pediatric patients. RESULTS: Vascular access device (VAD) types included: 110 patients with indwelling port-a-cath (PAC), 34 PICC line devices, and 34 central venous catheter (CVC) devices in 170 patients. Median catheter life during RT was 43 days (range 1-86 days) with a total of 7,169 total catheter days while patients received RT. A 14% PAC complication rate included negative blood return (6.3%) and infection (3.6%). Complication rates for PICC and CVC access devices were 38% and 20.5%, respectively (χ(2) P = 0.007 when compared with PAC). Most frequent complications for PICC lines were no blood return (11.7%), and infection or occlusion (8.8% each). CVC complications were breakage (8.8%) and infection (8.8%). Access device replacement rates were 3.6% (PAC), 14.7% (PICC), and 8.8% (CVC). CONCLUSIONS: In the outpatient delivery of RT to children, indwelling ports provide greater convenience, less likelihood of infection or complication, and greater durability than PICC or CVC devices.