Search

Background: Proton radiotherapy (RT) is an attractive tool to deliver local therapy with minimal dose to uninvolved tissue, however, not suitable for all patients. The aim was to explore complications, especially severe late complications (grades 3-4), following proton RT delivered to a complete Swedish cohort of paediatric patients aged <18 years treated 2008-2019. Material and Methods: Data was downloaded from a national registry. Complications with a possible causation with RT are reported. Proton treatments until July 2015 was performed with a fixed horizontal 172 MeV beam (The Svedberg Laboratory (TSL), Uppsala) in a sitting position and thereafter with gantry-based pencil-beam scanning technique (Skandion Clinic, Uppsala) in a supine position. Results: 219 courses of proton RT (77 at TSL and 142 at Skandion) were delivered to 212 patients (mean age 9.2 years) with various tumour types (CNS tumours 58%, sarcomas 26%, germ cell tumours 7%). Twenty-five patients had severe acute complications (skin, mucous membrane, pharynx/oesophagus, larynx, upper gastrointestinal canal, lower gastrointestinal canal, eyes, ears). Fifteen patients had severe late complications; with increased proportion over time: 4% at 1-year follow-up (FU), 5% at 3-year, 11% at 5-year. Organs affected were skin (1 patient), subcutaneous tissue (4), salivary glands (1), upper GI (1), bone (7), joints (2), CNS (2), PNS (1), eyes (1) and ears (5). Twenty-one of the 28 patients with 10-year FU had at least one late complication grades 1-4 and fourteen of them had more than one (2-5 each). Conclusion: The most important result of our study is the relatively low proportion of severe late complications, comparable with other proton studies on various tumours. Furthermore, the numbers of late complications are lower than our own data set on a mixed population of photon and proton treated paediatric patients, assuring the safety of using proton therapy also in the clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study regarding risk factors for radiation-induced trismus, which is restricted mouth opening during treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC). Topics discussed include association of temporomandibular joint (TM joint) and pterygoid muscles with radiation-induced trismus, association of masseter muscle doses to higher trismus risk and risk of radiation-induced trismus in patients getting high radiation dose.

Background and purpose. The variability in target delineation for similar cases between centres treating paediatric and adolescent patients, and the apparent differences in interpretation of radiotherapy guidelines in the treatment protocols encouraged us to perform a dummy-run study as a part of our quality assurance work. The aim was to identify and quantify differences in the segmentation of target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) and to analyse the treatment plans and dose distributions. Materials and methods. Four patient cases were selected: Wilm's tumour, Hodgkin's disease, rhabdomyosarcoma of the prostate and chordoma of the skull base. The five participating centres received the same patient-related material. They introduced the cases in their treatment planning system, delineated target volumes and OARs and created treatment plans. Dose-volume histograms were retrieved for relevant structures and volumes and dose metrics were derived and compared, e.g. target volumes and their concordance, dose homogeneity index (HI), treated and irradiated volumes, remaining volume at risk and relevant Vx and Dx values. Results. We found significant differences in target segmentation in the majority of the cases. The planning target volumes (PTVs) varied two- to four-fold and conformity indices were in the range of 0.3 -0.6. This resulted in large variations in dose distributions to OARs as well as in treated and irradiated volumes even though the treatment plans showed good conformity to the PTVs. Potential reasons for the differences in target delineation were analysed. Conclusion. Considerations of the growing child and difficulties in interpretation of the radiotherapy information in the treatment protocols were identified as reasons for the variation. As a result, clarified translated detailed radiotherapy guidelines for paediatric/adolescent patients have been recognised as a way to reduce this variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]