4.0 Article

Proton beam therapy for pediatric ependymoma

期刊

PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 567-571

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ped.12624

关键词

brain; ependymoma; pediatric; proton beam therapy; radiotherapy

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan [24390286, 24659556, 25861064, 24591832]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24390286, 24659556, 24591832, 15H04901] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of proton beam therapy for pediatric patients with ependymoma. MethodsProton beam therapy was conducted for six patients (three boys and three girls; age, 2-6 years; median, 5 years) with ependymoma. The tumors were WHO grades 2 and 3 in two and four patients, respectively. All patients underwent surgery (subtotal and gross total resection in three patients each) and proton beam therapy at doses of 50.4-61.2 GyE (median, 56.7 GyE). The mean doses to normal brain tissue in proton beam therapy and photon radiotherapy were simulated using the same treatment planning computed tomography images. ResultsAll patients completed the planned irradiation. The follow-up period was 13-44 months (median, 24.5 months) from completion of proton beam therapy and all patients were alive at the end of this period. Local recurrence in the treatment field occurred in one patient at 4 months after proton beam therapy at 50.4 GyE. Alopecia and mild dermatitis occurred in all patients, but there was no severe toxicity. One patient had a once-off seizure after proton beam therapy and alopecia persisted in another patient for 31 months, but no patients had difficulty with daily life. The simulation showed that proton beam therapy reduces the dose to normal brain tissue by approximately half compared with photon radiotherapy. ConclusionsProton beam therapy for pediatric ependymoma is safe, does not have specific toxicities, and can reduce irradiation of normal brain tissue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据