Can We Spare the Pancreas and Other Abdominal Organs at Risk? A Comparison of Conformal Radiotherapy, Helical Tomotherapy and Proton Beam Therapy in Pediatric Irradiation.

Objectives: Late abdominal irradiation toxicity during childhood included renal damage, hepatic toxicity and secondary diabetes mellitus. We compared the potential of conformal radiotherapy (CRT), helical tomotherapy (HT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) to spare the abdominal organs at risk (pancreas, kidneys and liver- OAR) in children undergoing abdominal irradiation.
Methods: We selected children with abdominal tumors who received more than 10 Gy to the abdomen. Treatment plans were calculated in order to keep the dose to abdominal OAR as low as possible while maintaining the same planned target volume (PTV) coverage. Dosimetric values were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results: The dose distribution of 20 clinical cases with a median age of 8 years (range 1-14) were calculated with different doses to the PTV: 5 medulloblastomas (36 Gy), 3 left-sided and 2 right-sided nephroblastomas (14.4 Gy to the tumor + 10.8 Gy boost to para-aortic lymphnodes), 1 left-sided and 4 right-sided or midline neuroblastomas (21 Gy) and 5 Hodgkin lymphomas (19.8 Gy to the para-aortic lymphnodes and spleen). HT significantly reduced the mean dose to the whole pancreas (WP), the pancreatic tail (PT) and to the ipsilateral kidney compared to CRT. PBT reduced the mean dose to the WP and PT compared to both CRT and HT especially in midline and right-sided tumors. PBT decreased the mean dose to the ispilateral kidney but also to the contralateral kidney and the liver compared to CRT. Low dose to normal tissue was similar or increased with HT whereas integral dose and the volume of normal tissue receiving at least 5 and 10 Gy were reduced with PBT compared to CRT and HT.
Conclusion: In children undergoing abdominal irradiation therapy, proton beam therapy reduces the dose to abdominal OAR while sparing normal tissue by limiting low dose irradiation.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.