4.4 Article

Reduced-volume tumor-bed boost is not associated with inferior local control and survival outcomes in high-risk medulloblastoma

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.28027

关键词

craniospinal irradiation; high risk; medulloblastoma; posterior fossa; tumor bed

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [P30CA138292]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Radiotherapy boost to the entire posterior fossa (PF) is standard of care for high-risk (H-R) medulloblastoma patients; the utility of tumor bed (TB)-only boost is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of PF versus TB boost volume on tumor control and survival in the H-R medulloblastoma population. Methods Single-institution records for patients with H-R medulloblastoma were reviewed. The median craniospinal irradiation dose was 36 Gy (range, 23.4-45 Gy), and boost doses to either PF or TB were 54 to 55.8 Gy. PF (local) failures were scored as in-field, marginal (between 80% and 95% isodose lines), or distant. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards were used to assess the impact of radiation boost technique on local control (LC) and survival endpoints. Results Thirty-two patients with H-R medulloblastoma were treated between 1990 and 2015, with a median follow-up length of 5.12 years. Twenty-two patients received PF boost, and 10 received TB boost. Patient and disease characteristic were comparable between groups. A total of 11 PF failures occurred, including 3 isolated LFs (2 in the PF and 1 in the TB group). Most PF failures were in-field: three of four in the TB group and six of seven in the PF group; the remainder were marginal failures. TB boost was not associated with inferior LC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, log-rank P = 0.81) or overall survival (HR 1.40, P = 0.56) compared with PF boost. Conclusion Reduced-volume radiotherapy boost to the TB does not appear to compromise LC or survival in patients with H-R medulloblastoma; it may reduce the risk of ototoxicity.

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

4.4
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