Search

PurposeA magnetic resonance (MR) biologic marker (biomarker) is a measurable quantitative characteristic that is an indicator of normal biological and pathogenetic processes or a response to therapeutic intervention derived from the MR imaging process. There is significant potential for MR biomarkers to facilitate personalized approaches to cancer care through more precise disease targeting by quantifying normal versus pathologic tissue function as well as toxicity to both radiation and chemotherapy. Both of which have the potential to increase the therapeutic ratio and provide earlier, more accurate monitoring of treatment response. The ongoing integration of MR into routine clinical radiation therapy (RT) planning and the development of MR guided radiation therapy systems is providing new opportunities for MR biomarkers to personalize and improve clinical outcomes. Their appropriate use, however, must be based on knowledge of the physical origin of the biomarker signal, the relationship to the underlying biological processes, and their strengths and limitations. The purpose of this report is to provide an educational resource describing MR biomarkers, the techniques used to quantify them, their strengths and weakness within the context of their application to radiation oncology so as to ensure their appropriate use and application within this field.

A PENTEC (Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic) review was performed to estimate the dose-volume effects of radiation therapy on spine deformities and growth impairment for patients who underwent radiation therapy as children. A systematic literature search was performed to identify published data for spine deformities and growth stunting. Data were extracted from 12 reports of children irradiated to the spine (N = 603 patients). The extracted data were analyzed to find associations between complication risks and the radiation dose (conventional fractionation throughout) as impacted by exposed volumes and age using the mixed-effects logistic regression model. When appropriate, corrections were made for radiation modality, namely orthovoltage beams. In the regression analysis, the association between vertebral dose and scoliosis rate was highly significant (P <.001). Additionally, young age at time of radiation was highly predictive of adverse outcomes. Clinically significant scoliosis can occur with doses ≥15 Gy to vertebrae during infancy (<2 years of age). For children irradiated at 2 to 6 years of age, overall scoliosis rates of any grade were >30% with doses >20 Gy; grade 2 or higher scoliosis was correlated with doses ≥30 Gy. Children >6 years of age remain at risk for scoliosis with doses >30 Gy; however, most cases will be mild. There are limited data regarding the effect of dose gradients across the spine on degree of scoliosis. The risk of clinically meaningful height loss was minimal when irradiating small volumes of the spine up to 20 Gy (eg, flank irradiation), except in infants who are more vulnerable to lower doses. Growth stunting was more frequent when larger segments of the spine (eg, the entire spine or craniospinal irradiation) were irradiated before puberty to doses >20 Gy. The effect was modest when patients were irradiated after puberty to doses >20 Gy. To reduce the risk of kyphoscoliosis and growth impairment, the dose to the spine should be kept to <20 Gy for children <6 years of age and to <10 to 15 Gy in infants. The number of vertebral bodies irradiated and dose gradients across the spine should also be limited when possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of normal tissue radiation dose-response models for children with cancer has been challenged by many factors, including small sample sizes; the long length of follow-up needed to observe some toxicities; the continuing occurrence of events beyond the time of assessment; the often complex relationship between age at treatment, normal tissue developmental dynamics, and age at assessment; and the need to use retrospective dosimetry. Meta-analyses of published pediatric outcome studies face additional obstacles of incomplete reporting of critical dosimetric, clinical, and statistical information. This report describes general methods used to address some of the pediatric modeling issues. It highlights previous single- and multi-institutional pediatric dose-response studies and summarizes how each PENTEC taskforce addressed the challenges and limitations of the reviewed publications in constructing, when possible, organ-specific dose-effect models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We quantified the effect of various forward‐based treatment‐planning strategies in proton therapy on dose‐weighted linear energy transfer (LETd). By maintaining the dosimetric quality at a clinically acceptable level, we aimed to evaluate the differences in LETd among various treatment‐planning approaches and their practicality in minimizing biologic uncertainties associated with LETd. Method: Eight treatment‐planning strategies that are achievable in commercial treatment‐planning systems were applied on a cylindrical water phantom and four pediatric brain tumor cases. Each planning strategy was compared to either an opposed lateral plan (phantom study) or original clinical plan (patient study). Deviations in mean and maximum LETd from clinically acceptable dose distributions were compared. Results: In the phantom study, using a range shifter and altering the robust scenarios during optimization had the largest effect on the mean clinical target volume LETd, which was reduced from 4.5 to 3.9 keV/μm in both cases. Variations in the intersection angle between beams had the largest effect on LETd in a ring defined 3 to 5 mm outside the target. When beam intersection angles were reduced from opposed laterals (180°) to 120°, 90°, and 60°, corresponding maximum LETd increased from 7.9 to 8.9, 10.9, and 12.2 keV/μm, respectively. A clear trend in mean and maximum LETd variations in the clinical cases could not be established, though spatial distribution of LETd suggested a strong dependence on patient anatomy and treatment geometry. Conclusion: Changes in LETd from treatment‐plan setup follow intuitive trends in a controlled phantom experiment. Anatomical and other patient‐specific considerations, however, can preclude generalizable strategies in clinical cases. For pediatric cranial radiation therapy, we recommend using opposed lateral treatment fields to treat midline targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]