4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

ANALYSIS OF VISION LOSS CAUSED BY RADIATION-INDUCED OPTIC NEUROPATHY AFTER PARTICLE THERAPY FOR HEAD-AND-NECK AND SKULL-BASE TUMORS ADJACENT TO OPTIC NERVES

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.068

Keywords

Vision loss; Optic nerve; Late adverse effect; Carbon ion therapy; Proton therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the incident rates of vision loss (VL; based on counting fingers or more severe) caused by radiation-induced optic neuropathy (RION) after particle therapy for tumors adjacent to optic nerves (ONs), and to evaluate factors that may contribute to VL. Methods and Materials: From August 2001 to August 2006, 104 patients with head-and-neck or skull-base tumors adjacent to ONs were treated with carbon ion or proton radiotherapy. Among them, 145 ONs of 75 patients were irradiated and followed for greater than 12 months. The incident rate of VL and the prognostic factors for occurrence of VL were evaluated. The late effects of carbon ion and proton beams were compared on the basis of a biologically effective dose at alpha/beta = 3 gray equivalent (GYE(3)). Results: Eight patients (11%) experienced VL resulting from RION. The onset of VL ranged from 17 to 58 months. The median follow-up was 25 months. No significant difference was observed between the carbon ion and proton beam treatment groups. On univariate analysis, age (>60 years), diabetes mellitus, and maximum dose to the ON (>110 GyE(3)) were significant, whereas on multivariate analysis only diabetes mellitus was found to be significant for VL. Conclusions: The time to the onset of VL was highly variable. There was no statistically significant difference between carbon ion and proton beam treatments over the follow-up period. Based on multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus correlated with the occurrence of VL. A larger study with longer follow-up is warranted. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available