The Risk of Radiogenic Second Cancer Based on Differential DVH: Central Nervous System Malignant Tumor in Children

Abstract

Objectives:To quantify the risk of radiogenic second cancer in pediatric patients receiving hippocampal-sparing craniospinal irradiation either with intensity-modulated radiation therapy or tomotherapy due to the development of a solid second cancer after radiotherapy using the concept of excess absolute risk.Methods:Computed tomography images of 15 pediatric patients who received craniospinal irradiation treatment were selected for this study. For each case, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and tomotherapy plans were computed. Then, the dosimetry parameters were analyzed. Differential dose–volume histograms were generated, and the excess absolute risks were calculated for each plan of each patient.Results:The tomotherapy group was superior to the intensity-modulated radiation therapy group in target area homogeneity index (P < .001). Tomotherapy offered greater hippocampal sparing than intensity-modulated radiation therapy in terms of D 2% (15.66 vs 23.05 Gy, P < .001) and Dmean (9.79 vs 20.29 Gy, P < .001). Tomotherapy craniospinal irradiation induced a much higher risk than intensity-modulated radiation therapy craniospinal irradiation to the thyroid and lungs (excess absolute risk: thyroid 28.7 vs 26.9 per 10 000 PY, P = .010; lung 20.5 vs 18.9 per 10 000 PY, P = .003). Both techniques conferred a higher risk to the stomach, but there was little difference. In addition, the 2 plans induced less carcinogenic risk to the liver (excess absolute risk 4.2 vs 4.0 per 10 000 PY, P = .020).Conclusions:The tomotherapy plan has obvious advantages in the protection of the hippocampus for children undergoing craniospinal irradiation treatment. Tomotherapy increased the risk of radiogenic second cancer in organ at risk, and therefore, it is imperative to take the risk factor into consideration in the formulation of treatment protocols.

Deep-learning magnetic resonance imaging-based automatic segmentation for organs-at-risk in the brain: Accuracy and impact on dose distribution

“…Other authors have mostly reported on a smaller number of brain OARs, with focus on optic nerves, chiasm, brainstem, and hippocampi ( Supplementary material - Figure S5 ) [15] , [17] , [19] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] . There is limited data reporting on MRI-based auto-segmentation in the brain, as most of the reports are CT-oriented [16] , [18] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] . Nonetheless, some OARs (Cochlea, Eyes, Retina, and Lenses) are not included in this model and are of high importance for radiotherapy planning and would require manual delineation.…”