Dosimetric comparison of five different techniques for craniospinal irradiation across 15 European centers: analysis on behalf of the SIOP-E-BTG (radiotherapy working group).

PURPOSE: Conventional techniques (3D-CRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) are still widely used. Modern techniques (IMRT, VMAT, TomoTherapy®, proton pencil beam scanning [PBS]) are applied in a limited number of centers. For a 14-year-old patient, we aimed to compare dose distributions of five CSI techniques applied across Europe and generated according to the participating institute protocols, therefore representing daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter (n = 15) dosimetric analysis of five different techniques for CSI (3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, TomoTherapy®, PBS; 3 centers per technique) was performed using the same patient data, set of delineations and dose prescription (36.0/1.8 Gy). Different treatment plans were optimized based on the same planning target volume margin. All participating institutes returned their best treatment plan applicable in clinic. RESULTS: The modern radiotherapy techniques investigated resulted in superior conformity/homogeneity-indices (CI/HI), particularly in the spinal part of the target (CI: 3D-CRT:0.3 vs. modern:0.6; HI: 3D-CRT:0.2 vs. modern:0.1), and demonstrated a decreased dose to the thyroid, heart, esophagus and pancreas. Dose reductions of >10.0 Gy were observed with PBS compared to modern photon techniques for parotid glands, thyroid and pancreas. Following this technique, a wide range in dosimetry among centers using the same technique was observed (e.g., thyroid mean dose: VMAT: 5.6-24.6 Gy; PBS: 0.3-10.1 Gy). CONCLUSIONS: The investigated modern radiotherapy techniques demonstrate superior dosimetric results compared to 3D-CRT. The lowest mean dose for organs at risk is obtained with proton therapy. However, for a large number of organs ranges in mean doses were wide and overlapping between techniques making it difficult to recommend one radiotherapy technique over another.

Investigating survival, quality of life and cognition in PROton versus photon therapy for IDH-mutated diffuse grade 2 and 3 GLIOmas (PRO-GLIO): a randomised controlled trial in Norway and Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: The use of proton therapy increases globally despite a lack of randomised controlled trials demonstrating its efficacy and safety. Proton therapy enables sparing of non-neoplastic tissue from radiation. This is principally beneficial and holds promise of reduced long-term side effects. However, the sparing of seemingly non-cancerous tissue is not necessarily positive for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutated diffuse gliomas grade 2-3, which have a diffuse growth pattern. With their relatively good prognosis, yet incurable nature, therapy needs to be delicately balanced to achieve a maximal survival benefit combined with an optimised quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRO-GLIO (PROton versus photon therapy in IDH-mutated diffuse grade 2 and 3 GLIOmas) is an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase III non-inferiority study. 224 patients aged 18-65 years with IDH-mutated diffuse gliomas grade 2-3 from Norway and Sweden will be randomised 1:1 to radiotherapy delivered with protons (experimental arm) or photons (standard arm). First intervention-free survival at 2 years is the primary endpoint. Key secondary endpoints are fatigue and cognitive impairment, both at 2 years. Additional secondary outcomes include several survival measures, health-related quality of life parameters and health economy endpoints. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: To implement proton therapy as part of standard of care for patients with IDH-mutated diffuse gliomas grade 2-3, it should be deemed safe. With its randomised controlled design testing proton versus photon therapy, PRO-GLIO will provide important information for this patient population concerning safety, cognition, fatigue and other quality of life parameters. As proton therapy is considerably more costly than its photon counterpart, cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated. PRO-GLIO is approved by ethical committees in Norway (Regional Committee for Medical & Health Research Ethics) and Sweden (The Swedish Ethical Review Authority) and patient inclusion has commenced. Trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals, relevant conferences, national and international meetings and expert forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05190172).