Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Pediatric Cranio-spinal Axis Irradiation: Comparison of Radiation-induced Secondary Malignancy Estimations Based on Three Methods of Analysis for Three Different Treatment Modalities
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Medical Radiation Physics (together with KI). University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, USA.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 52015 (English)In: Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment (Online), ISSN 1533-0346, E-ISSN 1533-0338, Vol. 14, no 2, p. 169-180Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Pediatric cranio-spinal axis irradiation (CSI) is a valuable treatment for many central nervous system (CNS) diseases, but due to the life expectancies and quality of life expectations for children, the minimization of the risk for radiation-induced secondary malignancies must be a high priority. This study compared the estimated CSI-induced secondary malignancy risks of three radiation therapy modalities using three different models. Twenty-four (n = 24) pediatric patients previously treated with CSI for tumors of the CNS were planned using three different treatment modalities: three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and Tomotherapy. Each plan was designed to deliver 23.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) to the target which was defined as the entire brain and spinal column with a 0.7 cm expansion. The mean doses as well as the dose volume histograms (DVH) of specific organs were analyzed for secondary malignancy risk according to three different methods: the effective dose equivalent (EDE), the excess relative risk (ERR), and the linear quadratic (LQ) models. Using the EDE model, the average secondary risk was highest for the 3D-CRT plans (37.60%), compared to VMAT (28.05%) and Tomotherapy (27.90%). The ERR model showed similarly that the 3D-CRT plans had considerably higher risk (10.84%) than VMAT and Tomotherapy, which showed almost equal risks (7.05 and 7.07%, respectively). The LQ model requires organ-specific cell survival parameters, which for the lungs, heart, and breast relevant values were found and applied. The lung risk for secondary malignancy was found to be 1.00, 1.96, and 2.07% for 3D-CRT, VMAT, and Tomotherapy, respectively. The secondary cancer risk for breast was estimated to be 0.09, 0.21, and 0.27% and for heart it was 9.75, 6.02 and 6.29% for 3D-CRT, VMAT, and Tomotherapy, respectively. Based on three methods of secondary malignancy estimation, the 3D-CRT plans produced highest radiation-induced secondary malignancy risk, and the VMAT and Tomotherapy plans had nearly equal risk. Pediatric patients must be treated with reducing long term sequelae as a priority.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 14, no 2, p. 169-180
Keywords [en]
CSI, Pediatric CNS cancer, Secondary malignancy risk
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-176220DOI: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500413ISI: 000354548700003PubMedID: 24684581OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-176220DiVA, id: diva2:1373464
Available from: 2019-11-27 Created: 2019-11-27 Last updated: 2019-11-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mavroidis, Panayiotis
By organisation
Medical Radiation Physics (together with KI)
In the same journal
Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment (Online)
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf