Abstract
Recent progress in the treatment for pediatric malignancies using a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy has improved survival. However, late toxicities of radiotherapy are a concern in long‐term survivors. A recent study suggested reduced secondary cancer and other late toxicities after proton beam therapy (PBT) due to dosimetric advantages. In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of PBT for pediatric patients treated in Japan. A retrospective observational study in pediatric patients who received PBT was performed. All patients aged <20 years old who underwent PBT from January 1983 to August 2014 at four sites in Japan were enrolled in the study. There were 343 patients in the study. The median follow‐up periods were 22.6 months (0.4–374.3 months) for all patients and 30.6 months (0.6–374.3 months) for survivors. The estimated 1‐, 3‐, 5‐, and 10‐year survival rates were 82.7% (95% CI: 78.5–87.0%), 67.4% (61.7–73.2%), 61.4% (54.8–67.9%), and 58.7% (51.5–65.9%), respectively. Fifty‐two events of toxicity ≥ grade 2 occurred in 43 patients. Grade 4 toxicities of myelitis, visual loss (two cases), cerebral vascular disease, and tissue necrosis occurred in five patients. This study provides preliminary results for PBT in pediatric patients in Japan. More experience and follow‐up with this technique are required to establish the efficacy of PBT in this patient population.
Keywords: Observational study, PBT, pediatric, proton beam therapy, radiotherapy
Introduction
About 2500 to 3000 new pediatric malignancies are diagnosed every year in Japan. Recent progress using a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy has improved survival and almost 70% of patients can now be cured 1. However, late toxicities of radiotherapy are a problem in long‐term survivors because children have higher radiation sensitivity and lower radiation tolerance than adults. Reduction in quality of life due to growth and development retardation and secondary cancer is also a significant problem for pediatric patients 2, 3.
The energy of X‐rays commonly used for the treatment of pediatric malignancies reaches a peak at a certain depth and then gradually declines along the irradiation pathway. Therefore, some normal tissue close to the target tumor receives a high dose. Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has made it possible to irradiate a complex tumor that is difficult to treat with traditional photon radiotherapy, and progress with four‐dimensional radiotherapy now permits precise diagnostic imaging. However, the lower dose area is increased with these techniques and this leads to a significant risk of secondary cancer 4.
In contrast, proton beams have a sharp Bragg peak, with low energy before the peak and almost zero energy after the peak. Therefore, in proton beam therapy (PBT), normal tissue around the tumor receives a reduced dose compared to photon radiotherapy, and this is especially beneficial for pediatric tumors or tumors adjacent to normal tissue for which irradiation should be strictly avoided 5. Recent studies show that PBT can reduce the rate of secondary cancer in long‐term follow‐up 6, 7, 8. In PBT, the tumor control rate is similar to that in photon radiotherapy 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, but late toxicity and the secondary cancer risk should be much lower due to the dose distribution 21. For this reason, PBT has potential as a treatment for pediatric tumors, but fewer institutions have proton beam centers compared to those with normal photon radiotherapy. In this study, we evaluated PBT for pediatric patients in a multicenter study.
Patients and Methods
A retrospective observational study in pediatric patients who received PBT was performed at four institutions in Japan. All patients aged <20 years old who received PBT at these sites from January 1983 to August 2014 were enrolled without exclusion. The endpoints of the study were safety and efficacy. Data were collected for date of birth, sex, height, weight, disease, reason for PBT, potential for other treatment (photon radiotherapy, surgery), clinical target volume, tumor size, irradiation port number, dose fractionation and treatment period, reference point, combination treatment, sedation, performance status (PS) at the start of treatment, dose to organ at risk, start and end day of PBT, early toxicity, late toxicity, last survival date or date of death, secondary cancer, discontinuation of PBT, and possible comparison of dose distribution to IMRT.
Individual information for each patient was SSL encrypted and anonymized. For patients who were followed at an institution other than that at which PBT was administered, entry into the study was determined based on the rules of the follow‐up hospital or with ethical approval. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method (SPSS, IBM Inc. NY, USA).
Results
The characteristics of the 343 patients in the study are shown in Table 1. There were 190 males and 153 females, and the median age of all patients was 7 years old (range: 0–19). PS were 0, 1, 2, and unknown for 209, 103, 29, and 2 patients, respectively. PBT was used as a component of initial therapy in 257 patients and for recurrence in 86 patients. Seven patients had multiple primary cancer. Forty‐two patients had received other radiotherapy before PBT and the irradiation field in PBT overlapped with the previous field in 32 of these patients. Surgery was conducted before PBT in 216 patients and after PBT in 7 patients, and 147 patients received concurrent chemotherapy.
Table 1.
Patients and proton beam therapy characteristics
| Age (median) | 0–19 (7) |
|---|---|
| Sex (male/female) | 190/153 |
| Disease | |
| Brain tumor | 79 |
| Rhabdomyosarcoma | 71 |
| Neuroblastoma | 46 |
| Ewing sarcoma | 30 |
| Head and neck carcinoma | 27 |
| Chordoma | 14 |
| Brain stem tumor | 17 |
| AVM | 8 |
| Others | 51 |
| Irradiation site | |
| Central nervous system | 126 |
| Head and neck | 105 |
| Abdomen | 35 |
| Chest | 45 |
| Pelvis | 24 |
| Extremities | 2 |
| Others | 6 |
| PS (0/1/≥2) | 209/103/29 (unknown 2) |
| Initial treatment or recurrence | 257/86 |
| Multiple primary cancer | |
| No/Yes | 336/7 |
| Recent irradiation | |
| No/Yes | 301/42a |
| Surgery | |
| None/preirradiation/postirradiation | 120/216/7 |
| Chemotherapy | |
| None/pre/pre + concurrent/concurrent | 72/124/116/31 |
| Total dose (median) | 10.8–100 GyE (50.4 GyE) |
| Combination with photon radiotherapy | |
| Yes/No | 24/319 |
| Target volume | |
| <100 cc | 146 |
| 100–500 cc | 150 |
| >500 cc | 43 |
AVM, cerebral arteriovenous malformation.
Fields overlap: 32.
The irradiation dose ranged from 10.8 to 100 GyE (median: 50.4 GyE) and 24 patients received PBT and photon radiotherapy in combination. The irradiation volumes were <100 cc, 100–500 cc, >500 cc, and unknown in 146, 150, 43, and 4 patients, respectively, and 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 ports were used in 51, 147, 57, and 88 patients, respectively. The availability of photon radiotherapy and reasons for performing PBT are shown in Table 2. The information in Table 2 is based on the judgment of radiation oncologists at each facility.
Table 2.
Availability of photon radiotherapy and purpose of proton beam therapy (PBT)
| Availability of photon radiotherapy | |
|---|---|
| Available, but with increasing risk | 285 |
| Unavailable due to critical risk | 41 |
| Available with equal risk to PBT | 14 |
| Unknown | 3 |
| Reason of PBT (multiple selection) | |
| Reduction of growth retardation | 310 |
| Reduction of secondary cancer | 298 |
| Overdoses of normal tissues by photon radiotherapy | 99 |
| Previous irradiation | 25 |
| Patients’ wish | 14 |
| Other | 3 |
Photon radiotherapy could not be used in 41 patients because of critical toxicities, and 99 patients received PBT because an adjacent organ could not tolerate photon radiotherapy. The type of treated tumor and the irradiation site are shown in Table 1. Of 41 patients for whom it was considered difficult to perform photon radiotherapy, 3 had late toxicity ≥ grade 2 and 24 died of tumor progression (n = 22), secondary malignancy (n = 1), and accidental death (n = 1).
The median follow‐up periods were 22.6 months (0.4–374.3 months) for all patients and 30.6 months (0.6–374.3 months) for survivors. The estimated 1‐, 3‐, 5‐, and 10‐year survival rates were 82.7% (95% CI: 78.5–87.0%), 67.4% (61.7–73.2%), 61.4% (54.8–67.9%), and 58.7% (51.5–65.9%), respectively (Fig. 1). Overall survival was significantly poorer for recurrent disease (P = 0.001; Fig. 2A) and significantly better for patients who had not received previous irradiation (P = 0.001; Fig. 2B). Survival was also better for patients who could have received photon radiotherapy instead of PBT compared to those who could not receive photon radiotherapy due to anticipated critical toxicities (P = 0.001; Fig. 2C). However, performance of PBT, because the normal tissue dose exceeded a threshold in photon radiotherapy, was not a significant factor influencing survival (P = 0.06; Fig. 2D). The estimated 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year survival rates of brain tumor/rhabdomyosarcoma/neuroblastoma/Ewing sarcoma were 91.4%, 81.7%, and 81.7%/84.5%, 74.3%, and 66.5%/72.0%, 57.6%, and 57.6%/88.6%, 73.1%, and 56.8%, respectively (Figs. 3, 4).
Figure 1.
Overall survival curve for all patients.
Figure 2.
Comparison of overall survival between (A) new and recurrent cases, (B) patients with and without a history of irradiation, (C) patients for whom photon radiotherapy was possible and not possible, and (D) patients with a potential overdose and a tolerable dose in photon radiotherapy. Overall survival was compared, nonirradiation versus previous irradiation (2B), and photon radiotherapy could be used versus photon radiotherapy could not be used (2C).
Figure 3.
Overall survival curve for brain tumor, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Ewing sarcoma.
Figure 4.
Number of patients treated by proton beam therapy per year.
Toxicity events except for secondary cancer are shown in Table 3. There were 52 events of toxicity ≥ grade 2 in 43 patients. Grade 4 toxicities of myelitis, visual loss (2 cases), cerebral vascular disease, and tissue necrosis occurred in five patients, including 3 (60%) who were considered to be unable to tolerate photon radiotherapy (Tables 3 and 4). A secondary tumor developed in seven patients, including two patients with solid malignancies (osteosarcoma and thyroid cancer), four with blood malignancies, and one with benign pituitary adenoma. In‐field tumor development only occurred in the patient with pituitary adenoma (Table 5).
Table 3.
Toxicity for all patients
| Grade | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bone deformity | 8 | 2 | 0 |
| Growth hormone deficiency | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Thyroid dysfunction | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Visual/hearing impairment | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Brain necrosis/CVD | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Gastric/duodenum ulcer | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Pneumonitis | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Dysphagia | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Myelitis | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tissue necrosis | 0 | 0 | 1 |
CVD, cerebral vascular disease.
Table 4.
Grades 3 and 4 toxicities
| Grade | Disease | Toxicity | Age/Sex | Dose fractionation irradiation volume (cc) | Previous irradiation | Availability of PRT | Overdoses in case photon RT? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Abdominal Ewing | Gastric ulcer | 14/F | 55.8GyE/31fr >500 | No | Available | No |
| 3 | RMS | Bone deformity | 12/M | 39.6GyE/22fr <100 | Yes (overlapping +) | Available | No |
| 3 | Head and neck cancer | Dysphagia and pneumonitis | 16/M | 76GyE/38fr 100–500 | No | Available | Yes |
| 3 | Maxilla osteosarcoma | Oss deformity | 10/F | 59.4GyE/33fr <100 | No | Available | No |
| 3 | Brain tumor | Cerebral infarction | 3/M | 50.4GyE/28fr 100–500 | No | Available | No |
| 3 | AVM | Brain necrosis | 13/F | 24GyE/1fr <100 | No | Available | No |
| 3 | Head and neck cancer | Hearing loss | 18/F | 72GyE/36fr <100 | No | Available | Yes |
| 3 | Head and neck cancer | Hearing impairment | 2/M | 50.4GyE/28fr 100–500 | No | Available | Yes |
| 4 | Ewing | Myelitis | 4/F | 55.8GyE/31fr 100–500 | No | Available | No |
| 4 | Chordoma | Dysopia | 18/M | 70GyE/25fr <100 | Yes (overlapping +) | Available | Yes |
| 4 | Head and neck cancer | CVD | 16/M | 76GyE/38fr 100–500 | No | Available | Yes |
| 4 | Pelvic osteosarcoma | Tissue necrosis | 15/F | 70.4GyE/16fr >500 | No | Unavailable | Yes |
| 4 | Ewing | Dysopia | 15/M | 59.4GyE/33fr 100–500 | No | Available | No |
Table 5.
Secondary tumor
| Disease | Age/Sex | Total dose/irradiation volume | Secondary tumor | Outside/inside the irradiation field | Prognosis time from PBT (year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head and neck RMS | 15/M | 60 GyE/100–500 cc | Osteosarcoma | Outside | 13.2 |
| Maxillary sinus carcinoma | 4/F | 40 GyE/<100 cc | Thyroid cancer (papillary carcinoma) | Outside | 8.1 |
| Ewing sarcoma | 15/F | 55.8 GyE/100–500 cc | MDS | – | 3.1 |
| Abdominal RMS | 1/F | 54 GyE/100–500 cc | MDS | – | 3 |
| Medulloblastoma | 4/M | 55.8 GyE/>500 cc | AML | – | 1.9 |
| Pelvic RMS | 5/M | 50.4 GyE/>500 cc | AML | – | 1.8 |
| Chordoma | 14/F | 65 GyE/<100 cc | Pituitary adenoma | Inside | 8.8 |
RMS, rhabdomyosarcoma; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; AML, acute myelogenous leukemia; PBT, proton beam therapy.
Discussion
Reduced toxicity is expected following PBT in pediatric patients because of the favorable dose distribution. In particular, the secondary cancer risk is likely to be much reduced in PBT compared to IMRT because IMRT requires many ports to reach a satisfactory dose distribution and this increases the low dose area. Comparisons of the dose distributions of IMRT and PBT have shown clear advantages of PBT. Hilbrant et al. suggested that the risk of secondary cancer in PBT was half that in IMRT for neuroblastoma and Wilms tumor, and Zhang et al. found that PBT reduces the risk of secondary cancer and cardiac mortality in craniospinal irradiation for medulloblastoma. The lifetime attributed risk for proton/photon therapy ranges from 0.1 to 0.22 and 0.12 to 0.24 for secondary cancer and cardiac mortality, respectively 22. Sethi et al. showed that PBT can reduce the risk of secondary malignancy based on significantly different 10‐year cumulative incidences of RT‐induced or in‐field secondary malignancies of 0% for PBT and 14% for photon radiotherapy in respective follow‐up periods of 6.9 and 13.1 years 22. It should be noted that these periods are still relatively short for this kind of assessment. In our study, 6 (1.7%) of 343 patients had a secondary malignancy, but our follow‐up period is clearly too short for complete evaluation of the risk of secondary malignancy.
In this study, patients who received PBT in 1983 were included, but the median follow‐up periods were only 22.6 months (range: 0.4–374.3 months) for all patients and 30.6 months (range: 0.6–374.3 months) for survivors. This is because the number of patients who could receive PBT was limited in the earlier period of the study, and most patients in the study received PBT recently (Fig. 4). The number of pediatric patients treated by PBT rapidly increased in the 2000s. This change occurred because a central institute for PBT in pediatrics was established in 2002 and a second institute later started for performance of clinical trials of PBT in pediatrics, which has relieved the financial burden on families. Follow up was also difficult for some patients who had to travel long distances due to education or a job. Some patients also do not like to come to the hospital after cure. In addition, photon radiotherapy is covered by insurance, but PBT is expensive in Japan. Also, many severe cases that could not be treated using other therapy were included in this study, and many of these patients could not continue long‐term follow up because of tumor progression, as indicated by the estimated 3‐, 5‐, 10‐year survival rates of 67.4%, 61.4%, and 58.7%, respectively.
The relatively short follow‐up period prevents a firm conclusion on late toxicities. However, our results suggest that PBT may be possible for patients who cannot receive photon radiotherapy, of whom there were 41 in the current study (12%). Treatment outcomes were poor for these patients compared to those for whom photon radiotherapy was possible, and some patients experienced severe toxicities, but at least they had an opportunity for treatment. Recent irradiation history also affected the prognosis, with patients with severe risks or recurrent disease having a poorer prognosis, even with PBT. However, patients who could receive photon radiotherapy but had a risk of toxicity due to an overdose were able to undergo PBT safely. IQ after irradiation may be affected by age at irradiation, dose, irradiation volume, and mean normal brain dose 23. Therefore, PBT may reduce intelligence retardation relative to other radiotherapy. Mizumoto found that PBT for pediatric ependymoma could reduce the dose to normal brain by 28–64% (median 47%) compared to photon radiotherapy 24, and Beltran et al. found that PBT could reduce the whole brain dose by 22% and the whole body dose by 43% in pediatric patients with craniopharyngioma 25. Macdonald et al. showed that normal intelligence was maintained and only a few patients developed evidence of growth hormone deficiency, hypothyroidism, or hearing loss after PBT at doses of 54 to 60 GyE for ependymoma 16. However, it is difficult to demonstrate actual reduction of treatment risk clinically. Pediatric solid malignancies occur less frequently than adult cancer, and a randomized study may be ethically unacceptable because PBT seems to be better in principle. In addition, follow‐up for a few decades is necessary. Further establishment of the efficacy and safety of PBT for pediatric patients will require accumulation of more cases and longer term follow up.
Conflict of Interest
All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by Grants‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (B) (15H04901) and Young Scientists (B) (25861064) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. We thank the members of the Tsukuba Critical Path Research and Education Integrated Leading Center (CREIL) at the University of Tsukuba for their advice on the study and on data management.
Cancer Medicine 2016; 5(7):1519–1525
References
- 1. Jemal, A. , Clegg L. X., Ward E., Ries L. A., Wu X., Jamison P. M., et al. 2004. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975‐2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer 101:3–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Oeffinger, K. C. , Mertens A. C., Sklar C. A., T. Kawashima , Hudson M. M., Meadows A. T., et al. 2006. Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355:1572–1582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Armstrong, F. D. 2012. Proton‐beam radiation therapy and health‐related quality of life in children with CNS tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 30:2028–2029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hall, E. J. 2006. Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 65:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Miralbell, R. , Lomax A., Cella L., and Schneider U.. 2002. 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. 54:824–829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Chung, C. S. , Yock T. I., Nelson K., Xu Y., Keating N. L., and Tarbell N. J.. 2013. Incidence of second malignancies among patients treated with proton versus photon radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 87:46–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Sethi, R. V. , Shih H. A., Yeap B. Y., Mouw K. W., Petersen R., Kim D. Y., et al. 2014. Second nonocular tumors among survivors of retinoblastoma treated with contemporary photon and proton radiotherapy. Cancer 120:126–133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Merchant, T. E. , and Farr J. B.. 2014. Proton beam therapy: a fad or a new standard of care. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 26:3–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Cotter, S. E. , Herrup D. A., Friedmann A., Macdonald S. M., Pieretti R. V., Robinson G., et al. 2011. Proton radiotherapy for pediatric bladder/prostate rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcomes and dosimetry compared to intensity‐modulated radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 81:1367–1373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Amsbaugh, M. J. , Grosshans D. R., McAleer M. F., Zhu R., Wages C., Crawford C. N., et al. 2012. Proton therapy for spinal ependymomas: planning, acute toxicities, and preliminary outcomes. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 83:1419–1424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Childs, S. K. , Kozak K. R., Friedmann A. M., Yeap B. Y., Adams J., MacDonald S. M., et al. 2012. Proton radiotherapy for parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcomes and late effects. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 82:635–642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Hattangadi, J. A. , Rombi B., Yock T. I., Broussard G., Friedmann A. M., Huang M., et al. 2012. Proton radiotherapy for high‐risk pediatric neuroblastoma: early outcomes and dose comparison. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 83:1015–1022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. De Amorim Bernstein, K. , Sethi R., Trofimov A., Zeng C., Fullerton B., Yeap B. Y., et al. 2013. Early clinical outcomes using proton radiation for children with central nervous system atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 86:114–120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hill‐Kayser, C. , Tochner Z., Both S., Lustig R., Reilly A., Balamuth N., et al. 2013. Proton versus photon radiation therapy for patients with high‐risk neuroblastoma: the need for a customized approach. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 60:1606–1611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Jimenez, R. B. , Sethi R., Depauw N., Pulsifer M. B., Adams J., McBride S. M., et al. 2013. Proton radiation therapy for pediatric medulloblastoma and supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumors: outcomes for very young children treated with upfront chemotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 87:120–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Macdonald, S. M. , Sethi R., Lavally B., Yeap B. Y., Marcus K. J., Caruso P., et al. 2013. Proton radiotherapy for pediatric central nervous system ependymoma: clinical outcomes for 70 patients. Neuro‐oncology 15:1552–1559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Oshiro, Y. , Mizumoto M., Okumura T., Sugahara S., Fukushima T., Ishikawa H., et al. 2013. Clinical results of proton beam therapy for advanced neuroblastoma. Radiat. Oncol. 8:142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Rombi, B. , Ares C., Hug E. B., Schneider R., Goitein G., Staab A., et al. 2013. 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. 86:578–584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Bishop, A. J. , Greenfield B, Mahajan A., Paulino A. C., Okcu M. F., Allen P. K., et al. 2014. Proton beam therapy versus conformal photon radiation therapy for childhood craniopharyngioma: multi‐institutional analysis of outcomes, cyst dynamics, and toxicity. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 90:354–361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Song, S. , Park H. J., Yoon J. H., Kim D. W., Park J., Shin D., et al. 2014. Proton beam therapy reduces the incidence of acute haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities associated with craniospinal irradiation in pediatric brain tumors. Acta Oncol. 53:1158–1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Hirano, E. , Fuji H., Onoe T., Kumar V., Shirato H., and Kawabuchi K.. 2014. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of cochlear dose reduction by proton beam therapy for medulloblastoma in childhood. J. Radiat. Res. 55:320–327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Zhang, R. , Howell R. M., Taddei P. J., Giebeler A., Mahajan A., and Newhauser W. D.. 2014. A comparative study on the risks of radiogenic second cancers and cardiac mortality in a set of pediatric medulloblastoma patients treated with photon or proton craniospinal irradiation. Radiother. Oncol. 113:84–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Meadows, A. T. , Gordon J., Massari D. J., Littman P., Fergusson J., and Moss K.. 1981. Declines in IQ scores and cognitive dysfunctions in children with acute lymphocytic leukaemia treated with cranial irradiation. Lancet 2:1015–1018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Mizumoto, M. , Oshiro Y., Takizawa D., Fukushima T., Fukushima H., Yamamoto T., et al. 2015. Proton beam therapy for pediatric ependymoma. Pediatr. Int. 57:567–571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Beltran, C. , Roca M., and Merchant T. E.. 2012. On the benefits and risks of proton therapy in pediatric craniopharyngioma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 82:e281–e287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]