Secondary Malignancy Risk Following Proton Radiation Therapy.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows dose to be concentrated in the tumor volume while sparing normal tissues. However, the downside to IMRT is the potential to increase the number of radiation-induced second cancers. The reasons for this potential are more monitor units and, therefore, a larger total-body dose because of leakage radiation and, because IMRT involves more fields, a bigger volume of normal tissue is exposed to lower radiation doses. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy may double the incidence of solid cancers in long-term survivors. This outcome may be acceptable in older patients if balanced by an improvement in local tumor control and reduced acute toxicity. On the other hand, the incidence of second cancers is much higher in children, so that doubling it may not be acceptable. IMRT represents a special case for children for three reasons. First, children are more sensitive to radiation-induced cancer than are adults. Second, radiation scattered from the treatment volume is more important in the small body of the child. Third, the question of genetic susceptibility arises because many childhood cancers involve a germline mutation. The levels of leakage radiation in current Linacs are not inevitable. Leakage can be reduced but at substantial cost. An alternative strategy is to replace X-rays with protons. However, this change is only an advantage if the proton machine employs a pencil scanning beam. Many proton facilities use passive modulation to produce a field of sufficient size, but the use of a scattering foil produces neutrons, which results in an effective dose to the patient higher than that characteristic of IMRT. The benefit of protons is only achieved if a scanning beam is used in which the doses are 10 times lower than with IMRT.

To compare treatment plans from standard photon therapy to intensity modulated X-rays (IMRT) and protons for craniospinal axis irradiation and posterior fossa boost in a patient with medulloblastoma. Proton planning was accomplished using an in-house 3D planning system. IMRT plans were developed using the KonRad treatment planning system with 6-MV photons. Substantial normal-tissue dose sparing was realized with IMRT and proton treatment of the posterior fossa and spinal column. For example, the dose to 90% of the cochlea was reduced from 101.2% of the prescribed posterior fossa boost dose from conventional X-rays to 33.4% and 2.4% from IMRT and protons, respectively. Dose to 50% of the heart volume was reduced from 72.2% for conventional X-rays to 29.5% for IMRT and 0.5% for protons. Long-term toxicity with emphasis on hearing and endocrine and cardiac function should be substantially improved secondary to nontarget tissue sparing achieved with protons. The present study clearly demonstrates the advantage of conformal radiation methods for the treatment of posterior fossa and spinal column in children with medulloblastoma, when compared to conventional X-rays. Of the two conformal treatment methods evaluated, protons were found to be superior to IMRT.