John H. Maduro

Proton therapy is a promising modality for craniospinal irradiation (CSI), offering dosimetric advantages over conventional treatments. While significant attention has been paid to spine fields, for the brain fields, only dose reduction to the lens of the eye has been reported. Hence, the objective of this study is to assess the potential gains and feasibility of adopting different treatment planning techniques for the entire brain within the CSI target. To this end, eight previously treated CSI patients underwent retrospective replanning using various techniques: (1) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization, (2) the modification/addition of field directions, and (3) the pre-optimization removal of superficially placed spots. The target coverage robustness was evaluated and dose comparisons for lenses, cochleae, and scalp were conducted, considering potential biological dose increases. The target coverage robustness was maintained across all plans, with minor reductions when superficial spot removal was utilized. Single- and multifield optimization showed comparable target coverage robustness and organ-at-risk sparing. A significant scalp sparing was achieved in adults but only limited in pediatric cases. Superficial spot removal contributed to scalp V30 Gy reduction at the expense of lower coverage robustness in specific cases. Lens sparing benefits from multiple field directions, while cochlear sparing remains impractical. Based on the results, all investigated plan types are deemed clinically adoptable.

Background Radiation therapy normal tissue dose constraints are critical when treating pediatric patients. However, there is limited evidence supporting proposed constraints, which has led to variations in constraints over the years. In this study, we identify these variations in dose constraints within pediatric trials both in the United States and in Europe used in the past 30 years. Procedure All pediatric trials from the Children's Oncology Group website were queried from inception until January 2022 and a sampling of European studies was included. Dose constraints were identified and built into an organ‐based interactive web application with filters to display data by organs at risk (OAR), protocol, start date, dose, volume, and fractionation scheme. Dose constraints were evaluated for consistency over time and compared between pediatric US and European trials Results One hundred five closed trials were included—93 US trials and 12 European trials. Thirty‐eight separate OAR were found with high‐dose constraint variability. Across all trials, nine organs had greater than 10 different constraints (median 16, range 11–26), including serial organs. When comparing US versus European dose tolerances, the United States constraints were higher for seven OAR, lower for one, and identical for five. No OAR had constraints change systematically over the last 30 years. Conclusion Review of pediatric dose‐volume constraints in clinical trials showed substantial variability for all OAR. Continued efforts focused on standardization of OAR dose constraints and risk profiles are essential to increase consistency of protocol outcomes and ultimately to reduce radiation toxicities in the pediatric population.