Craniospinal Irradiation in Medulloblastoma using High Energy Medical Linear Accelerator: an Innovative Approach to Planning Technique

Gurjar, O P; Arya, R; Goyal, H; Handa, P; Bagdare, P; Khan, A; Paliwal, R K; Mishra, S P

doi:10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.767

Craniospinal Irradiation in Medulloblastoma using High Energy Medical Linear Accelerator: an Innovative Approach to Planning Technique

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

O P Gurjar ¹^{, 2}

R Arya ³

H Goyal ⁴

P Handa ⁴

P Bagdare ⁴

A Khan ⁴

R K Paliwal ²

S P Mishra ²^{, 5}

¹ Department of Radiotherapy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal

² Department of Physics, Mewar University, Chittorgarh

³ Department of Radiation Oncology, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore

⁴ Roentgen-SAIMS Radiation Oncology Centre, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore

⁵ Department of Radiation Oncology, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India

https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.767

Abstract

Background: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) of medulloblastoma poses technological challenges due to the involvement of large treatment volume. Commonly, the whole treatment length is covered with two different isocentric plans in which the junction is shifted after every five fractions to overcome the possibility of hot and cold spot.
Objective: This study aims to evaluate dosimetrically and clinically the innovative planning technique for the CSI which doesn’t need re-planning and re-setup of patients after every five fractions.
Material and Methods: Computed tomography was done for fifteen (ten children and five adults) patients diagnosed with medulloblastoma. Treatment planning for 36 Gray (Gy) in 20 fractions (#) at the rate of 1.8Gy/# was done on the treatment planning system. A single plan for children was created with two bilateral fields of 6 Mega Voltage (MV) energy for cranium and one posterior field of 6 MV for spinal cord (C1-S2). Two plans for adult patients were created, first plan was with two bilateral fields of 6 MV for cranium and two posterior oblique fields of 6 MV for cervical and the part of thoracic spinal cord (up to T8-T9). The second plan was with a single posterior field of 15 MV covering remaining thoracic (T8-T9 to T12), lumbar and sacrum (up to lower border of S2) spine. After careful evaluation of all the plans, treatment was delivered; acute toxicities were recorded.
Results: 95% of prescribed dose was received by more than 95% of planning target volume in all the plans with the acceptable hot spot and good homogeneity index. All the patients reported common radiation induced acute toxicities (headache, vomiting, weakness) during radiotherapy.
Conclusion: The new planning technique for CSI has acceptable dosimetric and acute clinical possibilities; therefore it can be used for CSI for improved homogeneous dose delivery.

Keywords

Craniospinal Irradiation

Feathering Technique

Field Edge Matching

Medulloblastoma

Hansen EK, Roach M. Handbook of evidence-based radiation oncology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
Dennis M, Spiegler BJ, Hetherington CR, Greenberg ML. Neuropsychological sequelae of the treatment of children with medulloblastoma. J Neurooncol. 1996;29:91-101. PubMed PMID: 8817420.
Halberg FE, Wara WM, Fippin LF, Edwards MS, Levin VA, Davis RL, et al. Low-dose craniospinal radiation therapy for medulloblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20:651-4. PubMed PMID: 2004939.
Hughes EN, Shillito J, Sallan SE, Loeffler JS, Cassady JR, Tarbell NJ. Medulloblastoma at the joint center for radiation therapy between 1968 and 1984. The influence of radiation dose on the patterns of failure and survival. Cancer. 1988;61:1992-8. PubMed PMID: 3129177.
Halperin EC, Brady LW, Perez CA, Wazer DE. Perez & Brady’s principles and practice of radiation oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
Selek U, Zorlu F, Hurmuz P, Cengiz M, Turker A, Soylemezoglu F, et al. Craniospinal radiotherapy in adult medulloblastoma. Strahlenther Onkol. 2007;183:236-40. doi: 10.1007/s00066-007-1563-y. PubMed PMID: 17497094.
Washington CM, Leaver DT. Principles and Practice of Radiation Therapy: Physics, Simulation, and Treatment Planning. 1st ed. Maryland Heights: Mosby; 2003.
Michalski JM, Klein EE, Gerber R. Method to plan, administer, and verify supine craniospinal irradiation. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2002;3:310-6. doi: 10.1120/1.1508013. PubMed PMID: 12383051; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5724535.
Rieken S, Gaiser T, Mohr A, Welzel T, Witt O, Kulozik AE, et al. Outcome and prognostic factors of desmoplastic medulloblastoma treated within a multidisciplinary treatment concept. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:450. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-450. PubMed PMID: 20731859; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2939548.
Goldwein JW, Radcliffe J, Packer RJ, Sutton LN, Lange B, Rorke LB, et al. Results of a pilot study of low-dose craniospinal radiation therapy plus chemotherapy for children younger than 5 years with primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Cancer. 1993;71:2647-52. PubMed PMID: 8384073.
Lawenda BD, Gagne HM, Gierga DP, Niemierko A, Wong WM, Tarbell NJ, et al. Permanent alopecia after cranial irradiation: dose-response relationship. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:879-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.04.031. PubMed PMID: 15465206.
Jereczek-Fossa BA, Zarowski A, Milani F, Orecchia R. Radiotherapy-induced ear toxicity. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29:417-30. PubMed PMID: 12972360.
Cairncross JG, Salmon J, Kim JH, Posner JB. Acute parotitis and hyperamylasemia following whole-brain radiation therapy. Ann Neurol. 1980;7:385-7. doi: 10.1002/ana.410070419. PubMed PMID: 6155101.
Murphy ES, Merchant TE, Wu S, Xiong X, Lukose R, Wright KD, et al. Necrosis after craniospinal irradiation: results from a prospective series of children with central nervous system embryonal tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:e655-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.061. PubMed PMID: 22768993; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3529413.
Gurjar OP, Mishra SP. A comparative study on patient specific absolute dosimetry using slab phantom, acrylic body phantom and goat head phantom. International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology. 2015;3:3212.
Gurjar OP, Mishra SP, Bhandari V, Pathak P, Pant S, Patel P. A study on the necessity of kV-CBCT imaging compared to kV-orthogonal portal imaging based on setup errors: considering other socioeconomical factors. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014;10:583-6. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.139157. PubMed PMID: 25313743.
Parker W, Filion E, Roberge D, Freeman CR. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation: target volume considerations, dose constraints, and competing risks. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:251-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.052. PubMed PMID: 17707279.
Sharma DS, Gupta T, Jalali R, Master Z, Phurailatpam RD, Sarin R. High-precision radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation: evaluation of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and helical TomoTherapy. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:1000-9. doi: 10.1259/bjr/13776022. PubMed PMID: 19581313; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3473394.
RTOG protocol 0225: A phase II study of IMRT +/- chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer. Available at: https://www.rtog.org/clinicaltrials/protocoltable/studydetails.aspx?study=0225. Accessed April 09, 2017.
RTOG protocol 0539: Phase II Trial of Observation for Low-Risk meningiomas and of Radiotherapy for Intermediate and High-Risk Meningiomas. Available at: https://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?ptid=387&mode=broadcasts&page896=2&study=0539. Accessed April 09, 2017.
Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Eisbruch A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S10-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754. PubMed PMID: 20171502; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4041542.