Search

Influence of radiotherapy technique on incidental dose to the whole ventricular system in focal irradiation of nongerminomatous germcell tumours

Item does not contain fulltext Inhomogeneities in radiotherapy dose distributions covering the vertebrae in children can produce long-term spinal problems, including kyphosis, lordosis, scoliosis, and hypoplasia. In the published literature, many often interrelated variables have been reported to affect the extent of potential radiotherapy damage to the spine. Articles published in the 2D and 3D radiotherapy era instructed radiation oncologists to avoid dose inhomogeneity over growing vertebrae. However, in the present era of highly conformal radiotherapy, steep dose gradients over at-risk structures can be generated and thus less harm is caused to patients. In this report, paediatric radiation oncologists from leading centres in 11 European countries have produced recommendations on how to approach dose coverage for target volumes that are adjacent to vertebrae to minimise the risk of long-term spinal problems. Based on available information, it is advised that homogeneous vertebral radiotherapy doses should be delivered in children who have not yet finished the pubertal growth spurt. If dose fall-off within vertebrae cannot be avoided, acceptable dose gradients for different age groups are detailed here. Vertebral delineation should include all primary ossification centres and growth plates, and therefore include at least the vertebral body and arch. For partial spinal radiotherapy, the number of irradiated vertebrae should be restricted as much as achievable, particularly at the thoracic level in young children (

To examine the educational background, clinical practice, and preferences regarding continuing medical education (CME) among radiation oncologists who attended the 2019 meeting of the Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS), a survey consisting of 20 questions was distributed asking for demographic and educational background, clinical practice, and preferences regarding pediatric radiation oncology CME. Of 188 participants, 130 (69.2%) returned the questionnaire. More than 80% reported access to CT simulation, three-dimensional radiotherapy, and general anesthesia while

Over the last two decades, rapid technological advances have dramatically changed radiation delivery to children with cancer, enabling improved normal-tissue sparing. This article describes recent advances in photon and proton therapy technologies, image-guided patient positioning, motion management, and adaptive therapy that are relevant to pediatric cancer patients. For medical physicists who are at the forefront of realizing the promise of technology, challenges remain with respect to ensuring patient safety as new technologies are implemented with increasing treatment complexity. The contributions of medical physicists to meeting these challenges in daily practice, in the conduct of clinical trials, and in pediatric oncology cooperative groups are highlighted. Representing the perspective of the physics committees of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe), this paper provides recommendations regarding the safe delivery of pediatric radiotherapy. Emerging innovations are highlighted to encourage pediatric applications with a view to maximizing the therapeutic ratio.

Background: Recurrences of glioma are usually local, suggesting the need for higher tumor dose. We investigated the boundaries for dose escalation of an 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine positron emission tomography defined target by intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Materials and methods: Standard dose (60 Gy) and dose-escalated plans were calculated for seven patients using IMRT, VMAT and IMPT. The achieved boost dose, the dose to the organs at risk (OAR), the dose homogeneity (defined as overdose volume, ODV) and the ratio of the 30 Gy isodose curve and the boost volume (R30) were compared. The risk of radionecrosis was estimated using the ratio of the dose volume histograms of the brain (range 30–60 Gy). Results: The mean boost dose was 77.1 Gy for IMRT, 79.2 Gy for VMAT and 85.1 GyE for IMPT. Compared with the standard plan, the ODV was unchanged and the R30 increased (17%) for IMRT. For VMAT, the ODV decreased (7%) and the R30 was unchanged whereas IMPT substantially decreased ODV (61%), R30 (22%), OAR doses as well as the risk of radionecrosis. Conclusions: Dose escalation can be achieved with IMRT, VMAT and IMPT while respecting normal tissue constraints, yet with IMPT being most favorable.