Skip to main content

Proton therapy in the most common pediatric non-central nervous system malignancies: an overview of clinical and dosimetric outcomes

Abstract

Radiation therapy represents an important approach in the therapeutic management of children and adolescents with malignant tumors and its application with modern techniques – including Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) – is of great interest. In particular, potential radiation-induced injuries and secondary malignancies – also associated to the prolonged life expectancy of patients – are still questions of concern that increase the debate on the usefulness of PBT in pediatric treatments. This paper presents a literary review of current applications of PBT in non-Central Nervous System pediatric tumors (such as retinoblastoma, Hodgkin Lymphoma, Wilms tumor, bone and soft tissues sarcomas). We specifically reported clinical results achieved with PBT and dosimetric comparisons between PBT and the most common photon-therapy techniques. The analysis emphasizes that PBT minimizes radiation doses to healthy growing organs, suggesting for reduced risks of late side-effects and radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Extended follow up and confirms by prospective clinical trials should support the effectiveness and long-term tolerance of PBT in the considered setting.

Introduction

Irradiation of primary or post-operative tumor site represents a fundamental part of the standard therapies for cancer due to the capability of X-rays to damage tumor cells DNA and induce tumor cells death [1]. Besides technological advances in photon beam radiotherapy (RT), potential long-term side-effects can affect neurocognitive and endocrine functions, as well as body-growth and fertility [2], in oncological pediatric patients. Indeed, it is well known that the use of RT in children and adolescents is particularly challenging [2] because of the increased risk of late toxicities (a serious concern in patients aged under 3 years [2, 3]) and secondary malignant neoplasms (SMNs) which are related to the higher radiation sensitivity and the increased cell-turnover of developing tissues [2].

Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) is a modality of charged particle therapy which provides excellent dose-distributions and an increased dose-sparing of normal tissues due to the absence of an exit-dose and an entrance-dose which is much lower than the target dose [1, 4]. These physical characteristics and the aforementionated dosimetric advantages suggest that PBT could be proposed as an alternative approach to conventional photon RT for the therapeutic management of malignant diseases [5, 6]. Furthermore, besides PBT benefits in normal tissues dose-sparing [3, 7,8,9,10], early clinical outcomes [4] also emphasized its advantages. Nevertheless, the question of PBT effectiveness and safety in comparison to modern high-conformal photon techniques is still debated [11, 12] due to the lack of long-term clinical data.

We observed that only selected papers analyzed particular critical issues related to proton treatments and their results were limited. Lodge at al [13]. considered that the use of protons for large tumors located next to critical organs at risk (OARs) was suggested, even if they did not investigated the role of PBT in pediatric patients [5]. Olsen [14] and Brada [15] summarized that PBT did not achieved sufficient evidences supporting its increased efficacy compared to other RT. Allen et al. [5] evidenced the benefit of PBT over photon treatments for pediatric Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors and other malignancies, but they underlined that existing data were still limited to provide conclusive recommendations for pediatric non-CNS tumors. In the Consensus Report from the Stockholm Pediatric Proton Therapy Conference published in 2016 [16], expert opinions on current indications for PBT in pediatrics confirmed that the majority of pediatric cancers which require RT should be treated with PBT. Protons were assumed as a preferred indication for most common pediatric CNS tumors, as well as for skull base tumors and retinoblastoma [16]. Nevertheless, there were different opinions on Hodgkin lymphoma – curable with lower radiation doses – and on rhabdomyosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma, for which the relative effectiveness of PBT depends on the tumor location [16].

Worldwide, the number of institutions offering PBT is gradually increasing and in the next years extensive data will provide more information on PBT effectiveness and cost-benefit rates in different scenarios.

We present a literature review of PBT performed for non-CNS pediatric tumors while specifically synthesizing its dosimetric and clinical advantages, which are changing the perspectives in radiation treatments. Whenever possible, we provided a discussion on emerging critical issues. We concluded this review with a summary of ongoing trials.

Materials and methods

A PubMed search was carried out using the following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and arrangements: (((particle therapy[MeSH Terms]) OR proton beam therapy[MeSH Terms]) AND radiation therapy[MeSH Terms]) AND pediatric neoplasms[MeSH Terms]). Dosimetric comparison studies between PBT and photon-RT, as well as clinical studies and case series assessing outcomes of PBT in the most common pediatric non-CNS malignancies (retinoblastoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, sarcomas, Wilms tumor) were included in this review. We considered articles published in English from 2002 to 2018 with the aim to evaluate more recent data. Papers concerning other treatments, other neoplasms, socio-economic analyses, radiobiological and procedural issues, as well as review articles, editorials, consensus reports, modeling studies, case reports were excluded. Additional references from the retrieved review articles and consensus reports were also considered. Results were summarized and reported in relation to patients’ population and study assessment. Furthermore, for an overview of ongoing trials evaluating the application of PBT in the aforesaid setting, we reported an updating of studies currently registered on clinicaltrials.gov website.

Results

Among the reviewed papers satisfying the selection criteria, 31 articles – mainly reporting retrospective mono-institutional experiences – were included in a qualitative synthesis of dosimetric (Table 1) and clinical (Table 2) PBT outcomes (Fig. 1).

Table 1 Summary of literature describing dosimetric results achieved by PBT and comparison of PBT vs photons
Table 2 Summary of literature describing clinical outcomes of PBT in the most common pediatric non-CNS malignancies
Fig. 1
figure1

Study selection workflow

Retinoblastoma

Retinoblastoma (RB) represents the most common primary ocular malignancy in childhood and it typically affects children under 4 years [17]. Patients often present a germ-line mutation of RB1 tumor suppressor gene. RT was used in selected patients to avoid surgical enucleation, even if long-term RT side effects such as conjunctivitis, corneal opacification, cataract, glaucoma, vitreous hemorrhage, retinopathy, optic neuropathy, orbital hypoplasia were observed [17, 47, 48]. Furthermore, although RB is a radiosensitive tumor, the use of RT could increase the risks of radiation-induced SMNs [12, 49], which is greater in children with hereditary RB gene mutation [12, 17, 50]. For these reasons, RT is currently considered as a salvage-therapy and modern therapeutic eye-preserving approaches include crio-ablation, laser, chemotherapy [11, 17, 49]. Various high-conformal RT techniques (fractionated stereotactic RT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), PBT) have been adopted to spare OARs [17, 49] and to reduce radiation side-effects [17]. PBT represents the most conformal external-beam RT option currently available for RB [30], since it reduces the integral dose to healthy tissues by depositing the majority of energy in the “Bragg peak” [17].

Krengli et al. [17], in their study on the optimization of proton-beam arrangements for various intra-ocular tumor locations, concluded that PBT could reduce the risk of radiation-induced SMNs and cosmetic and functional side-effects due to its dosimetric benefits (Table 1). In the treatment planning study presented by Lee et al. [18], (Table 1), PBT achieved the best target-coverage (which clinically might translate into a reduced risk of tumor recurrence) and orbital bone dose-sparing compared to photon-RT techniques.

Long-term tumor control and toxicity outcomes after PBT were investigated by Mouw et al. [30] (Table 2) among patients treated for early or locally-advanced disease. A high disease-local control (LC) was observed during a prolonged follow up period both in early and advanced cases, with no patients died for RB or developing metastatic disease; treatment-related ocular side-effects were uncommon, many patients retained useful vision in the treated eye and no SMNs were observed [30]. As focused in the PTOG/PROS/EPTN (Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group/Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society/European Particle Therapy Network) consensus statement [11], data by Mouw et Al. suggest that PBT should be reconsidered for early-stage patients, even if global evidences on the reduction of SMNs-risk using PBT are still low [46]. For this reason, although PBT dosimetric advantages suggest its safety [12, 48, 50], confirms from further studies with a long-term follow up are necessary.

Hodgkin lymphoma

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a malignancy which usually affects adolescents and young adults [20] with a 5 years-overall survival (OS) rate varying in the range between 85 and 95%, in relation to disease stage and prognostic factors present at diagnosis [19, 51, 52]. Combined-modality treatment regimens for early-stage HL integrate RT for its benefits in loco-regional disease control and overall outcome [53]. In advanced-stages, adjuvant RT is used for patients treated with less-intensive chemotherapy regimens or with incomplete or slow responses to chemotherapy [54, 55]. Despite RT advantages in tumor control, an increased risk of treatment-related chronic toxicity in survivors have been observed. In particular, RT on mediastinum combined with anthracyclines increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (such as coronaropathy, valvular diseases, cardiomyopathy, arhythmia, pericarditis) and cardiac death as late sequelae [20, 56]. Also an increased incidence of secondary breast cancer in female survivors has been reported [19, 57, 58]. In summary, an elevated risk of developing SMNs and cardiovascular diseases have been observed as late side-effects even 30 years after chemo-radiation [21, 56] and at lower RT threshold doses [20].

When both chemotherapy and RT are necessary to treat HL, the risk of toxicity for normal tissues could be limited minimizing treatment field size and reducing radiation doses in combined-modality regimens [20, 55, 59, 60]. High-conformal RT techniques – such as IMRT combined with sophisticated systems for image-guidance or PBT – also allow to reduce the risk of RT-related late effects, with substantial benefits especially in young HL patients which have high survival rate [20]. Indeed, IMRT improves OARs dose-sparing in the high-dose region because of its capability to shape the dose distribution around concave structures. However, an important IMRT disadvantage consists in the exposure of OARs to low radiation doses [19].

Andolino et al. [19] (Table 1) compared breast-sparing proton therapy (BS-PT) with involved-field 3D-CRT for pediatric female HL patients and concluded that this technique was able to markedly reduce (by 80%) breast dose. Hoppe et al. [4, 20, 21] enrolled patients (including adults, children and adolescents) with Stage IA-IIIB HL and mediastinal involvement on a prospective study comparing adjuvant involved-node proton therapy (INPT) with 3D-CRT and IMRT. They observed [4, 21] that PBT provided the lowest mean dose to heart, lungs and breasts for all patients (Table 1), with an improvement in dose-sparing also for esophagus and thyroid. Authors also reported [20] the reduction of radiation doses to all major cardiac subunits with PBT, suggesting for a potential limitation of late cardiac toxicities, even if confirms in long-term follow-up were necessary [20]. Another issue assessed by Hoppe et al. [4] concerns the early clinical outcomes (Table 2) of performed INPT: treatments were well-tolerated, with disease outcomes similar to those obtained with conventional photon-RT; nevertheless, a long-term follow-up was considered necessary to evaluate the likely benefit of PBT in reducing the risk of late toxicity [4]. Similar findings were reported by Wray [31] and other authors of the same research group at the University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute after the clinical outcomes assessment of 22 HL patients treated with PBT.

To our knowledge, to date, no randomized studies have assessed long-term effectiveness and tolerance of INPT versus INRT/involved-site (IS) RT – newer photon-RT approaches with reduced fields/volumes which are becoming the new standard of care in radiation treatments for HL in the era of modern imaging [53, 61].

To conclude, as reported also by Weber et Al. [11] – who revised the Evidence-based Review on the Use of Proton Therapy in Lymphoma From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group (PTCOG) Lymphoma Subcommittee [62] – the dosimetric advantages of PBT are expected to translate into a lower risk of late toxicities and SMNs, establishing the foundation for PBT clinical application and further researches to confirm the expected outcomes.

Sarcoma

Chordoma and Chondrosarcoma

Chordoma (CH) and chondrosarcoma (CS) are uncommon neoplasms in children with relatively low metastatic potential [37, 63]. CH can occur along the axial skeleton, usually at the skull base or near the coccyx [11, 37]. CS can involve the pelvis or long bones, with rare presentation at the skull base [11]. Surgery is considered the first-line therapeutic approach [11], however total resection can rarely be achieved because of tumor proximity to critical structures [32, 36]. Also RT planning is limited by OARs tolerance: thus, the delivered RT doses could result in a suboptimal long-term tumor control [32, 64]. Anyhow, because of the low metastatic potential of these tumors, LC, OS and progression free survival (PFS) are very important aspects and adjuvant radiation treatments remain recommended. In this setting PBT has established itself as an optimal approach, especially for skull-base CH and CS [36].

Hug et al. [32] (Table 2) analyzed children with mesenchymal tumors invading the skull base (including CH and CS) which were treated with fractionated proton or combined proton-photon therapy: their data suggested that PBT delivered after a major skull base surgery could offer advantages in tumor control and survival. Also Habrand et al. [33] observed excellent LC and low-grade late toxicities after high-dose photon-proton therapy performed in a similar setting (Table 2).

Rutz et al. [34] evaluated patients with extra-cranial CH (Table 2) treated with postoperative spot-scanning PBTFootnote 1 (performed after a function-preserving surgery) and observed high OS and PFS rates with acceptable treatment tolerance. In a consecutive study, Rutz et al. [35] (Table 2) reported satisfactory preliminary outcomes of postoperative spot-scanning PBT delivered in combination with or without intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). PBT was well tolerated with late adverse events (mild to moderate in degree) reported only in three cases.

The effectiveness of spot-scanning PBT for extra-cranial CH was also evaluated by Staab et al. [37] for adult and pediatric patients (Table 2). In this study, patients with gross residual disease before PBT and no surgical stabilization (SS) obtained a 100% LC rate at 5 years; among patients who underwent prior titanium-based SS and reconstruction of the axial skeleton, a significant reduction (30%) of 5-year LC rate was observed. Authors concluded that PBT achieved high rates of tumor LC – even for large, unresectable diseases – which were significantly better in patients without SS. Also Rombi [38] and Ares [36] confirmed excellent outcomes and acceptable late toxicities using fractionated spot-scanning PBT (Table 2).

As previously observed in the PTOG/PROS/EPTN consensus [11], since CH and CS are radioresistent tumors which require high target doses, PBT could represent an ideal approach to provide target dose-escalation with reduced overall integral dose. The results detailed in our literature review (Table 2) are in line with data summarized by Weber et Al. [11], who reported the 5-years OS after PBT in the range 68–89%.

Soft tissue sarcoma

RT plays an important role in the multimodal management of childhood sarcoma [50]. For resectable sarcoma the standard-of-care is surgery followed by adjuvant RT for higher-risk patients, while for unresectable tumors neoadjuvant chemo-RT followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated [66]. A preliminary multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended [66]. Nevertheless, the proximity to dose-limiting OARs (as occurs in head and neck, parameningeal or paraspinal tumor localization) could influence the radiation treatment choice. Especially in these cases, PBT could represent a valid alternative RT approach to preserve patients quality of life by reducing OARs doses.

In Weber’s treatment planning study [23] – which compared IMRT and IMPT for paraspinal sarcoma – an increased dose-sparing for OARs and a potential target dose-escalation were reported with PBT.

Timmerman et Al. [39] (Table 2) investigated the feasibility of spot-scanning PBT in children with soft tissue sarcoma (including rhabdomyosarcoma) arise in critical sites and unresectable in the majority of cases: PBT was feasible and well tolerated, with early LC comparable to outcomes reported with conventional RT.

Rhabdomyosarcoma

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common soft-tissue sarcoma in childhood which represents a highly-malignant and locally-invasive neoplasm [41]. This tumor commonly occurs in sites within head and neck presenting also parameningeal locations [67]. A potential reduction of radiation-induced SMNs using PBT was suggested by a model-based secondary cancer risk assessment performed by Miralbell et al. [24]. PBT has also provided dosimetric and clinical advantages, as highlighted in the following summarized studies (Tables 1 and 2).

Ladra et Al. [25] published the first comparison of proton vs photon dosimetry from a prospective multi-institutional phase II clinical trial which enrolled 54 children (the first largest published dosimetric series for RMS); they demonstrated a lower integral dose, an increased OARs dose-sparing and satisfactory clinical outcomes with passively-scattered PBT. Leiser et Al. [40] observed minimal late toxicity and improved quality of life in 83 RMS children treated with pencil beam scanning PBT combined with chemotherapy. Confirms of the short-term effect and acute tolerability of PBT derive from a recent published experience among 55 RMS patients in Japan [44].

RT and chemotherapy represent the main treatment choices for parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma (PRMS). Kozak et al. [26] compared PBT and IMRT plans for pediatric PRMS: both plans allowed acceptable and comparable target-coverage, but the higher dose-conformity provided by PBT resulted in a significant improvement of dose-sparing for the majority of the considered OARs. Childs [41] reported tumor LC and survival rates after PBT comparable to those in literature controls. Weber et al. [42] (Table 2) reported the clinical outcomes of 39 pediatric PRMS patients treated with PBT and chemotherapy, evaluated over a median follow-up of 41 months: authors observed encouraging results, in line with the previously reported evidences on the safety and effectiveness of PBT in the considered setting [42].

Cure rates for genitourinary (e.g. bladder/prostate) RMS with a multimodal approach are 70 to 80%, but significant late side-effects are often observed [27]. Cotter et al. [27] reported comparable target dosimetry between PBT and IMRT in this setting, but PBT led to a significant decrease in mean dose to the considered OARs (bladder, testes, femoral heads, growth plates and pelvic bones), suggesting for a reduced risk of late toxicity. Lee et al. [18] compared dose-distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of 3D-CRT, electron-RT, IMRT and PBT plans for three pediatric disease sites, including pelvic sarcomas: PBT was superior in eliminating any dose to the ovaries and reducing doses to the pelvic bones and vertebrae. Due to these advantages, PBT in pelvic sarcoma could have the potential clinical benefit of preserving reproductive and hormonal functions, as well as body growth. Confirms from extended clinical data are necessary.

Pediatric patients with orbital RMS often receive combined chemotherapy and RT [28]. However, late effects of photon RT can potentially affect functional and cosmetic results [28]. PBT has shown to provide excellent target dose-distributions with increased OARs dose-sparing. Indeed, Yock et al. [28] reported PBT advantages in target-coverage and doses to brain, pituitary gland, hypothalamus, temporal lobes and ipsilateral/contralateral orbital structures as compared to 3D-CRT, even if tumor size and location affected the degree of OARs dose-sparing. Local and distant tumor control with PBT compared favorably to previous published results [28].

Available dosimetric and clinical results of PBT for RMS are promising. As considered also by Weber et Al. [11], PBT could offer an alternative therapeutic approach that should be able to reduce side effects on developing organs.

Ewing’s sarcoma

Ewing’s sarcoma is a rare malignant bone and/or soft tissue small blue round cell cancer [11], often occurring in sites that are not easily resected [45]. It is highly responsive to RT, which has been widely used [45]. In particular, as summarized by Rombi [45, 50], RT is prescribed in the postoperative setting (for patients with close or positive resection margins and in cases with a poor or slow clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy) or in children with unresectable tumors/higher risk of post-surgical morbidity. Nevertheless, also definitive RT produces side-effects as a result of normal tissues exposure [45] and PBT has been suggested as an alternative treatment option to reduce this risk [45, 68].

In particular, Rombi et al. [45] reported (Table 2) good clinical outcomes and treatment tolerance among 30 children treated with PBT, supporting the premise that protons could be used similarly to photons to achieve analogous disease control rates at comparable doses. Even if available data of PBT application in this setting are still limited to produce significant evidences [46], the main clear advantage of protons is to reduce normal tissue doses. The potential reduction of late toxicities and the possibility of target dose-escalation [11, 68] could represent consequent benefits.

Wilms tumors

In patients affected by Wilms tumor – the most common childhood renal neoplasm [11] – RT is indicated to improve LC when incomplete resection, higher stage or unfavorable histology occur [11].

Few studies on PBT in this setting are reported. Hillbrand et al. [29] described a substantial reduction in mean liver and kidney dose with PBT compared to conventional RT and IMRT (Table 1). SMNs risk with scanned beams-PBT was inferior to IMRT and passively-scattered PBT (which is associated to secondary neutrons production) (Table 2). Also the PTOG/PROS/EPTN consensus statement [11] has underlined the improvement in OARs dose-sparing with PBT, even if further evaluations on long-term local failure and patients survival are required.

Ongoing trials

Among the ongoing trials on PBT in pediatric patients registered (clinicaltrials.gov) at the time of this review, fifteen were analyzing outcomes of PBT in the discussed non-CNS malignancies: six were active but not recruiting, five were in recruiting status, one was completed and three were terminated.

Figure 2 regroups 11 trials which were evaluating specific pediatric non-CNS tumors.

Fig. 2
figure2

Ongoing trials evaluating specific primary pediatric non-CNS tumors

Six studies were specifically assessing dosimetric issues (NCT01502150, NCT02070393, NCT00592592, NCT00850200, NCT00592293, NCT01751412). The main goal of these prospective study is to obtain information on PBT effectiveness and toxicity, as well as wider dosimetric data from treatment plans, with the aim to improve the planning and delivery of PBT for future approaches in pediatric patients.

Discussion

We present a summary of dosimetric and clinical results achieved with PBT in pediatric patients affected by non-CNS tumors.

At the time of our review, recent authoritative reports [11] have suggested that existing clinical data is still too preliminary to add new directions in clinical practice. Nevertheless, dosimetric advantages of PBT over photon techniques were well-known and knowledge of charged particles’ physical characteristics was consolidated. Basing on the concept that dosimetric data could lead to a prediction of clinical outcomes, we tried to assess if – in particular cases – PBT dosimetric benefits could translate into clinical gains.

In primis, our research confirmed that PBT improves OARs dose-sparing; additionally, PBT with spot-scanning/pencil beam scanning and IMPT modalities reduce neutron dose-contamination. These are crucial topics that increase radiation oncologists’ interest on PBT application in pediatric treatments, especially when radioresistent tumors arise next to critical anatomic sites require higher radiation doses or a dose-escalation [23, 26] (e.g. paraspinal and parameningeal sarcoma).

The overall actual clinical results are confirmed as not-exhaustive to provide high-level evidences in all indications [11, 46]. Among the retrieved articles, only few studies [12, 30] reported long-term clinical data. Despite early tumor control and patients survival rates with PBT resulted high (Table 2), long-term clinical results are mandatory to assess treatment effectiveness and tolerance in pediatric cohorts.

Costs and difficulties to access to PBT centers (depending on the small number of centers able to perform PBT) are still elevated [69] and could affect the prospect to provide significant evidences on large sample sizes. To overcome these difficulties, comprehensive database or wider registries [11] could support analyses aimed to define the indications for PBT in the multidisciplinary management of pediatric non-CNS tumors.

Careful analyses have also to be performed to balance PBT cost-effectiveness with requests of managing potential late effects related to different RT approaches.

Moreover, further studies with appropriate methodologies are required to answer to actual recurring questions, such as: What differences in OARs-sparing and tolerance profiles can be observed between PBT and modern high-conformal photon techniques supported by sophisticated image-guidance systems [5]? Which potential outcomes/effects could be associated to PBT combined with new drugs [11]? Is radiobiology of protons clearly understood [6, 11, 68]? Indeed, one major limitation of previous published works – besides the retrospective nature of their observations – was the comparison between PBT and photon-RT with no advanced technologies [11, 12]. Modern technologies for image-guidanceFootnote 2 and treatment planning (e.g. image-guided IMRT on limited volumes) have improved dose-conformity and OARs dose-sparing even with photon-therapy [11, 49]. Nevertheless, clinical results of modern photon-IGRT are still limited. Additionally, in IMRT treatments, developing OARs remain at risk of non-target radiation dose [11] and could be at increased risk of SMNs as compared to conventional 3D-CRT [2] due to low radiation doses [1].

In 2018 one of the first treatment planning comparison between IMPT and highly sophisticated deep-inspiration breath hold Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) in adults has been published [71]: even if VMAT was planned in a very experienced center, IMPT provided higher target coverage and reduced mean doses to the considered OARs [71]. These results are promising and could produce implications in pediatric research, inducing radiation oncologists to further consider PBT application and promote clinical trials.

Conclusion

Since the long life expectancy of patients is a major issue in oncological pediatric treatments, adequate analyses on RT late effects become necessary. PBT has provided dosimetric advantages for normal tissues as compared to photon-RT, but long-term clinical results and comparisons with modern photon-RT outcomes are still required. Ongoing and future investigations should clearly define the role of PBT in the multimodal management of the most common pediatric non-CNS tumors.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed for this review are included in this published article.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Spot-scanning is a PBT delivery method which provide a uniform and complex dose-distribution with the advantage of reduced neutron contamination [65]

  2. 2.

    Nowadays image-guidance is being used in association with current knowledge on optimization/reduction of exposure to imaging doses [70]

Abbreviations

3D-CRT:

Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy

BS-PT:

Breast-sparing proton therapy

CH:

Chordoma

CNS:

Central Nervous System

CS:

Chondrosarcoma

DVHs:

Dose-volume histograms

HL:

Hodgkin lymphoma

IMPT:

Intensity-modulated proton therapy

IMRT:

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy

INPT:

Involved-node proton therapy

ISRT:

Involved-site radiotherapy

LC:

Local control

OARs:

Organs at risk

OS:

Overall survival

PBT:

Proton Beam Therapy

PFS:

Progression free survival

PRMS:

Parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma

PTOG/PROS/EPTN:

Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group/Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society/European Particle Therapy Network

RB:

Retinoblastoma

RMS:

Rhabdomyosarcoma

RT:

Radiation therapy (or radiotherapy)

SMNs:

Secondary malignant neoplasms

SS:

Surgical stabilization

VMAT:

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

References

  1. 1.

    Levin W, Kooy H, Loeffler J, DeLaney T. Proton beam therapy. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(8):849–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602754.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Greco C, Wolden S. Current status of radiotherapy with proton and light ion beams. Cancer. 2007;109(7):1227–38.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Fuss M, Hug EB, Schaefer RA, Nevinny-Stickel M, Miller DW, Slater JM, Slater JD. Proton radiation therapy (PRT) for pediatric optic pathway gliomas: comparison with 3D planned conventional photons and a standard photon technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45(5):1117–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hoppe BS, Flampouri S, Zaiden R, et al. Involved-node proton therapy in combined modality therapy for hodgkin lymphoma: results of a phase 2 study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(5):1053–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Allen AM, Pawlicki T, Dong L, et al. An evidence based review of proton beam therapy: the report of astros emerging technology committee. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103(1):8–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tian X, Liu K, Hou Y, Cheng J, Zhang J. The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status. Mol Clin Oncol. 2018;8(1):15–21. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1499.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Archambeau JO, Slater JD, Slater JM, Tangeman R. Role for proton beam irradiation in treatment of pediatric cns malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;22(2):287–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Palm A, Johansson KA. A review of the impact of photon and proton external beam radiotherapy treatment modalities on the dose distribution in field and out-of-field; implications for the long-term morbidity of cancer survivors. Acta Oncologica. 2007;46(4):462–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860701218626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lin R, Hug EB, Schaefer RA, Miller DW, Slater JM, Slater JD. Conformal proton radiation therapy of the posterior fossa: a study comparing protons with three-dimensional planned photons in limiting dose to auditory structures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(4):1219–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lomax AJ, Bortfeld T, Goitein G, et al. A treeatment planning inter-comparison of proton and intensity modulated photon radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 1999;51(3):257–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Weber DC, Habrand JL, Hoppe BS, et al. Proton therapy for pediatric malignancies: fact, figures and costs. A joint consensus statement from the pediatric subcommittee of PTCOG, PROS and EPTN. Radiother Oncol. 2018;128:44–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sethi RV, Shih HA, Yeap BY, et al. Second nonocular tumors among survivors of retinoblastoma treated with contemporary photon and proton radiotherapy. Cancer. 2014;120(1):126–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lodge M, Pijls-Johannesma M, Stirk L, Munro AJ, De Ruysscher D, Jefferson T. A systematic literature review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hadron therapy in cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2007;83(2):110–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Olsen DR, Bruland ØS, Frykholm G, Norderhaug IN. Proton therapy–a systematic review of clinical effectiveness. Radiother Oncol. 2007;83(2):123–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Brada M, Pijls-Johannesma M, De Ruysscher D. Proton therapy in clinical practice: current clinical evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(8):965–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Indelicato DJ, Merchant T, Laperriere N, et al. Consensus Report From the Stockholm Pediatric Proton Therapy Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(2):387e392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Krengli M, Hug EB, Adams JA, Smith AR, Tarbell NJ, Munzenrider JE. Proton radiation therapy for retinoblastoma: comparison of various intraocular tumor locations and beam arrangements. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(2):583–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lee CT, Bilton SD, Famiglietti RM, et al. Treatment planning with protons for pediatric retinoblastoma, medulloblastoma, and pelvic sarcoma: how do protons compare with other conformal techniques? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(2):362–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Andolino DL, Hoene T, Xiao L, Buchsbaum J, Chang AL. Dosimetric comparison of involved-field three-dimensional conformal photon radio- therapy and breast-sparing proton therapy for the treatment of hodgkins lymphoma in female pediatric patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(4):e667–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hoppe BS, Flampouri S, Su Z, et al. Effective dose reduction to cardiac structures using protons compared with 3DCRT and IMRT in mediastinal hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(2):449–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hoppe BS, Flampouri S, Su Z, et al. Consolidative involved-node proton therapy for stage Ia-IIIb mediastinal hodgkin lymphoma: preliminary dosimetric outcomes from a phase ii study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(1):260–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Knäusl B, Fuchs H, Dieckmann K, Georg D. Can particle beam therapy beimproved using helium ions? - a planning study focusing on pediatric patients. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(6):751–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2015.1125016.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Weber DC, Trofimov AV, Delaney TF, Bortfeld T. A treatment planning comparison of intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for paraspinal sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58(5):1596–606.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Miralbell R, Lomax A, Cella L, Schneider U. Potential reduction of the incidence of radiation-induced second cancers by using proton beams in the treatment of pediatric tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(3):824–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ladra MM, Edgington SK, Mahajan A, et al. A Dosimetric Comparison of Proton and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma Patients Enrolled on a Prospective Phase II Proton Study. Radiother Oncol. 2014;113(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.033.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kozak KR, Adams J, Krejcarek SJ, Tarbell NJ, Yock TI. A dosimetric comparison of proton and intensity-modulated photon radiotherapy for pediatric parameningeal rhabdomyosarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(1):179–86.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cotter SE, Herrup DA, Friedmann A, et al. Proton radiotherapy for pediatric bladder/prostate rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcomes and dosimetry compared to intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(5):1367–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Yock T, Schneider R, Friedmann A, Adams J, Fullerton B, Tarbell N. Proton radiotherapy for orbital rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcome and a dosimetric comparison with photons. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(4):1161–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hillbrand M, Georg D, Gadner H, Pötter R, Dieckmann K. Abdominal cancer during early childhood: a dosimetric comparison of proton beams to standard and advanced photon radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89(2):141–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mouw KW, Sethi RV, Yeap BY, et al. Proton radiation therapy for the treatment of retinoblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(4):863–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wray J, Flampouri S, Slayton W, et al. Proton therapy for pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(9):1522–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.26044.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hug EB, Sweeney RA, Nurre PM, Holloway KC, Slater JD, Munzen-rider JE. Proton radiotherapy in management of pediatric base of skull tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52(4):1017–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Habrand JL, Schneider R, Alapetite C, et al. Proton therapy in pediatric skull base and cervical canal low-grade bone malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(3):672–5.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Rutz HP, Weber DC, Sugahara S, et al. Extracranial chordoma: outcome in patients treated with function-preserving surgery followed by spot-scanning proton beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67(2):512–20.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Rutz HP, Weber DC, Goitein G, et al. Postoperative spot-scanning proton radiation therapy for chordoma and chondrosarcoma in children and adolescents: initial experience at Paul Scherrer Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1):220–5.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ares C, Hug EB, Lomax AJ, et al. Effectiveness and safety of spot scanning proton radiation therapy for chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base: first long-term report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(4):1111–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Staab A, Rutz HP, Ares C, et al. Spot-scanning-based proton therapy for extracranial chordoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(4):e489–96.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Rombi B, Ares C, Hug EB, et al. Spot-scanning proton radiation therapy for pediatric chordoma and chondrosarcoma: clinical outcome of 26 patients treated at Paul Scherrer Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(3):578–84.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Timmermann B, Schuck A, Niggli F, et al. Spot-scanning proton therapy for malignant soft tissue tumors in childhood: first experiences at the Paul Scherrer Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67(2):497–504.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Leiser D, Calaminus G, Malyapa R, et al. Tumour control and quality of life in children with rhabdomyosarcoma treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120(1):163–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Childs SK, Kozak KR, Friedmann AM, et al. Proton radiotherapy for Para- meningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcomes and late effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(2):635–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Weber DC, Ares C, Albertini F, et al. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for pediatric Parameningeal Rhabdomyosarcomas: clinical outcome of patients treated at the Paul Scherrer Institute. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(10):1731–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.25864.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Vern-Gross TZ, Indelicato DJ, Bradley JA, Rotondo RL. Patterns of failure in pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma after proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(5):1070–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Mizumoto M, Murayama S, Akimoto T, et al. Preliminary results of proton radiotherapy for pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma: a multi-institutional study in Japan. Cancer Med. 2018;7(5):1870–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1464.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Rombi B, DeLaney TF, MacDonald SM, et al. Proton radiotherapy for pediatric Ewing’s sarcoma: initial clinical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(3):1142–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Leroy R, Benahmed N, Hulstaert F, Van Damme N, De Ruysscher D. Proton therapy in children: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness in 15 pediatric cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):267–78.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Kaste SC, Chen G, Fontanesi J, Crom DB, Pratt CB. Orbital development in long-term survivors of retinoblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):1183–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Schipper J, Tan KE, van Peperzeel HA. Treatment of retinoblastoma by precision megavoltage radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1985;3:117–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Eldebawy E, Parker W, Rahman WA, Freeman CR. Dosimetric study of current treatment options for radiotherapy in retinoblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(3):e501–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Rombi B, Vennarini S, Vinante L, Ravanelli D, Amichetti M. Proton radiotherapy for pediatric tumors: review of first clinical results. Ital J Pediatr. 2014;40(1):74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277–300.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Kung FH, Schwartz CL, Ferree CR, et al. A randomized trial comparing chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy for children and adolescents with stages I, IIa, IIIa1 hodgkin disease: a report from the children’s oncology group. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2006;28(6):362–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Specht L, Yahalom J, Illidge T, et al. Modern radiation therapy for hodgkin lymphoma: field and dose guidelines from the international lymphoma radiation oncology group (ILROG). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(4):854–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Wolden SL, Chen L, Kelly KM, Nachman J, et al. Long-term results of CCG 5942: a randomized comparison of chemotherapy with and without radiotherapy for children with hodgkin’s lymphoma – A report from the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(26):3174.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Holtzman A, Flampouri S, Li Z, Mendenhall NP, Hoppe BS. Proton therapy in a pediatric patient with stage III hodgkin lymphoma. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(3):592–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Oeffinger KC, Mertens AC, Sklar CA, et al. Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(15):1572–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Bhatia S, Yasui Y, Robison LL, et al. High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood hodgkins disease: report from the late effects study group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(23):4386–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Dores GM, Metayer C, Curtis RE, et al. Second malignant neoplasms among long-term survivors of hodgkins disease: a population-based evaluation over 25 years. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(16):3484–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Travis LB, Hill DA, Dores GM, et al. Breast cancer following radiotherapy and chemotherapy among young women with hodgkin disease. Jama. 2003;290(4):465–75.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Girinsky T, van der Maazen R, Specht L, et al. Involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) in patients with early hodgkin lymphoma: concepts and guidelines. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79(3):270–7.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Eichenauer DA, Aleman BMP, Andrè M, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(Supplement 4):iv19–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Tseng YD, Cutter DJ, Plastaras JP, et al. Evidence-based review on the use of proton therapy in lymphoma from the particle therapy cooperative group (PTCOG) lymphoma subcommittee. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(4):825e842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Noël G, Feuvret L, Ferrand R, Boisserie G, Mazeron JJ, Habrand JL. Radiotherapeutic factors in the management of cervical-basal chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Neurosurgery. 2004;55(6):1252–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Catton C, O’Sullivan B, Bell R, et al. Chordoma: long-term follow-up after radical photon irradiation. Radiother Oncol. 1996;41(1):67–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Hall EJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton, and the risk of second cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(1):1–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Sangkhathat S. Current management of pediatric soft tissue sarcomas. World J Clin Pediatr. 2015;4(4):94–105.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Pastore G, Peris-Bonet R, Carli M, Martínez-García C, de Toledo JS, Steliarova-Foucher E. Childhood soft tissue sarcomas incidence and survival in european children (1978–1997): report from the automated childhood cancer information system project. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(13):2136–49.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Merchant TE. Clinical controversies: proton therapy for pediatric tumors. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2013;23, Elsevier:97–108.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Waddle MR, Sio TT, Van Houten HK, et al. Photon and proton radiation therapy utilization in a population of more than 100 million commercially insured patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(5):1078–82.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hess CB, Thompson HM, Benedict SH, et al. Exposure risks among children undergoing radiation therapy: considerations in the era of image guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94(5):978–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.12.372 Epub 2016 Jan 5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Baues C, et al. Proton versus photon deep inspiration breath hold technique in patients with hodgkin lymphoma and mediastinal radiation. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:122.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

“Not applicable”.

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AS gave substantial contributions to the conception of the study and drafted the work, RC was a major contributor in interpreting the data and writing the manuscript, MFP gave substantial contributions to the acquisition and analysis of data, BT gave substantial contributions to the acquisition and analysis of data, MM gave substantial contributions to the acquisition and analysis of data, AS substantively revised the work, AASI substantively revised the work, All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta Carbonara.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

“Not applicable”.

Consent for publication

“Not applicable”.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sardaro, A., Carbonara, R., Petruzzelli, M.F. et al. Proton therapy in the most common pediatric non-central nervous system malignancies: an overview of clinical and dosimetric outcomes. Ital J Pediatr 45, 170 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0763-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Proton beam therapy
  • Radiation therapy
  • Pediatric non-central nervous system malignancies