Skull Base Chordoma and Chondrosarcoma: Neuroradiologist's Guide to Diagnosis, Surgical Management, and Proton Beam Therapy.

Skull base chordomas and chondrosarcomas are distinct types of rare, locally aggressive mesenchymal tumors that share key principles of imaging investigation and multidisciplinary care. Maximal safe surgical resection is the treatment choice for each, often via an expanded endoscopic endonasal approach, with or without multilayer skull base repair. Postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy is frequently administered, usually with particle therapy such as proton beam therapy (PBT). Compared with photon therapy, PBT enables dose escalation while limiting damage to dose-limiting neurologic structures, particularly the brainstem and optic apparatus, due to energy deposition being delivered at a high maximum with a rapid decrease at the end of the penetration range (Bragg peak phenomenon). Essential requirements for PBT following gross total or maximal safe resection are tissue diagnosis, minimal residual tumor after resection, and adequate clearance from PBT dose-limiting structures. The radiologist should understand surgical approaches and surgical techniques, including multilayer skull base repair, and be aware of evolution of postsurgical imaging appearances over time. Accurate radiologic review of all relevant preoperative imaging examinations and of intraoperative and postoperative MRI examinations plays a key role in management. The radiology report should reflect what the skull base surgeon and radiation oncologist need to know, including distance between the tumor and PBT dose-limiting structures, tumor sites that may be difficult to access via the endoscopic endonasal route, the relationship between intradural tumor and neurovascular structures, and tumor sites with implications for postresection stability. ©RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Radiotherapy intensification for atypical and malignant meningiomas: A systematic review.

Background: The outcomes of nonbenign (WHO Grades 2 and 3 [G2, G3]) meningiomas are suboptimal and radiotherapy (RT) dose intensification strategies have been investigated. The purpose of this review is to report on clinical practice and outcomes with particular attention to RT doses and techniques. Methods: The PICO criteria (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) were used to frame the research question, directed at outlining the clinical outcomes in patients with G2-3 meningiomas treated with RT. The same search strategy was run in Embase and MEDLINE and, after deduplication, returned 1 807 records. These were manually screened for relevance and 25 were included. Results: Tumor outcomes and toxicities are not uniformly reported in the selected studies since different endpoints and time points have been used by different authors. Many risk factors for worse outcomes are described, the most common being suboptimal RT. This includes no or delayed RT, low doses, and older techniques. A positive association between RT dose and progression-free survival (PFS) has been highlighted by analyzing the studies in this review (10/25) that report the same endpoint (5y-PFS). Conclusions: This literature review has shown that standard practice RT leads to suboptimal tumor control rates in G2-3 meningiomas, with a significant proportion of disease recurring after a relatively short follow-up. Randomized controlled trials are needed in this setting to define the optimal RT approach. Given the increasing data to suggest a benefit of higher RT doses for high-risk meningiomas, novel RT technologies with highly conformal dose distributions are preferential to achieve optimal target coverage and organs at risk sparing.

Late Dental Toxicities After Proton Chemoradiation for Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Pediatric Case Report.

Purpose: Radiation therapy is an independent risk factor for adverse sequelae to the oral cavity and dentition in childhood cancer survivors. However, dental toxicities after radiation therapy often are underreported and there are minimal published data on disturbances in tooth development after proton beam therapy (PBT). We present the long-term clinical and radiographic dental findings 8 years after treatment completion for a patient treated with PBT and chemotherapy for rhabdomyosarcoma. Materials and Methods: Clinical follow-up data of patients treated with PBT within the Proton Overseas Programme (POP) is stored in a National Database and curated by a dedicated outcomes unit at the Christie NHS PBT center. This case report was identified from the extraction and analysis of data for pediatric head and neck cancer patients in this database for a service evaluation project. Results: The permanent dentition in this patient aged 3.5 years at the time of treatment was severely affected with abnormal dental development first observed 3.5 years after treatment completion. PBT delivered mean doses of 30 Gy(RBE = 1.1) to the maxilla and 25.9 Gy(RBE = 1.1) to the mandible. Conclusion: Significant dental development abnormalities occurred in this pediatric patient, despite doses in areas being lower than the proposed thresholds in the literature. Improved descriptions of dental toxicities and routine contouring of the maxilla and mandible are needed to correlate dosimetric data. The dose to teeth should be kept as low as reasonably possible in younger patients until the dose thresholds for dental toxicities are known.

Proton Beam Therapy in the Oligometastatic/Oligorecurrent Setting: Is There a Role? A Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with conventional photon radiotherapy (XRT) are well-established treatment options for selected patients with oligometastatic/oligorecurrent disease. The use of PBT for SABR-SRS is attractive given the property of a lack of exit dose. The aim of this review is to evaluate the role and current utilisation of PBT in the oligometastatic/oligorecurrent setting. METHODS: Using Medline and Embase, a comprehensive literature review was conducted following the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) criteria, which returned 83 records. After screening, 16 records were deemed to be relevant and included in the review. RESULTS: Six of the sixteen records analysed originated in Japan, six in the USA, and four in Europe. The focus was oligometastatic disease in 12, oligorecurrence in 3, and both in 1. Most of the studies analysed (12/16) were retrospective cohorts or case reports, two were phase II clinical trials, one was a literature review, and one study discussed the pros and cons of PBT in these settings. The studies presented in this review included a total of 925 patients. The metastatic sites analysed in these articles were the liver (4/16), lungs (3/16), thoracic lymph nodes (2/16), bone (2/16), brain (1/16), pelvis (1/16), and various sites in 2/16. CONCLUSIONS: PBT could represent an option for the treatment of oligometastatic/oligorecurrent disease in patients with a low metastatic burden. Nevertheless, due to its limited availability, PBT has traditionally been funded for selected tumour indications that are defined as curable. The availability of new systemic therapies has widened this definition. This, together with the exponential growth of PBT capacity worldwide, will potentially redefine its commissioning to include selected patients with oligometastatic/oligorecurrent disease. To date, PBT has been used with encouraging results for the treatment of liver metastases. However, PBT could be an option in those cases in which the reduced radiation exposure to normal tissues leads to a clinically significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities.

The need for consensus on delineation and dose constraints of dentofacial structures in paediatric radiotherapy: Outcomes of a SIOP Europe survey.

Background and purpose: Children receiving radiotherapy for head-and-neck tumours often experience severe dentofacial side effects. Despite this, recommendations for contouring and dose constraints to dentofacial structures are lacking in clinical practice. We report on a survey aiming to understand current practice in contouring and dose assessment to dentofacial structures. Methods: A digital survey was distributed to European Society for Paediatric Oncology members of the Radiation Oncology Working Group, and member-affiliated centres in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The questions focused on clinical practice and aimed to establish areas for future development. Results: Results from 52 paediatric radiotherapy centres across 27 countries are reported. Only 29/52 centres routinely delineated some dentofacial structures, with the most common being the mandible (25 centres), temporo-mandibular joint (22), dentition (13), orbit (10) and maxillary bone (eight). For most bones contoured, an 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable' dose objective was implemented. Only four centres reported age-adapted dose constraints.The largest barrier to clinical implementation of dose constraints was firstly, the lack of contouring guidance (49/52, 94%) and secondly, that delineation is time-consuming (33/52, 63%). Most respondents who routinely contour dentofacial structures (25/27, 90%) agreed a contouring atlas would aid delineation. Conclusion: Routine delineation of dentofacial structures is infrequent in paediatric radiotherapy. Based on survey findings, we aim to 1) define a consensus-contouring atlas for dentofacial structures, 2) develop auto-contouring solutions for dentofacial structures to aid clinical implementation, and 3) carry out treatment planning studies to investigate the importance of delineation of these structures for planning optimisation.

Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS: Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS: The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

Online learning in proton radiation therapy: the future in the post-Covid-19 pandemic era?

Objective: The Covid-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on medical education and led to a vast increase in online learning. Subsequently, the Christie International Proton School moved from face-to-face to online. Delegate feedback and current literature were studied to determine benefits, challenges, and potential solutions, for online proton therapy education. Methods: The course was converted to a 6-week online course with twice weekly 2-h sessions. Feedback was studied pre-, during-, and post-course regarding demographics, learning objectives, proton therapy knowledge, ease of engagement, technical difficulties, and course format. Statistical analyses were performed for proton therapy knowledge pre- and post-course. Results: An increase in delegate attendance was seen with increased international and multidisciplinary diversity. Learner objectives included treatment planning, clinical applications, physics, and centre development. Average learner reported scores of confidence in proton therapy knowledge improved significantly from 3, some knowledge, to 4, adequate knowledge after the course (p<0.0001). There were minimal reported difficulties using the online platform, good reported learner engagement, and shorter twice weekly sessions were reported conducive for learning. Recordings for asynchronous learning addressed time zone difficulties. Conclusion: The obligatory switch to online platforms has catalysed a paradigm shift towards online learning with delegates reporting educational benefit. We propose solutions to challenges of international online education, and a pedagogical model for online proton therapy education. Advances in knowledge: Online education is an effective method to teach proton therapy to international audiences. The future of proton education includes a hybrid of online and practical face-to-face learning depending on the level of cognitive skill required.