Despite the increased risk of subsequent primary tumors (SPTs) external beam radiation (EBRT) may be the only therapeutic option to preserve a retinoblastoma eye. Due to their physical properties, proton beam therapy (PBT) offers the possibility to use the effectiveness of EBRT in tumor treatment and to decisively reduce the treatment-related morbidity. We report our experiences of PBT as rescue therapy in a retrospectively studied cohort of 15 advanced retinoblastoma eyes as final option for eye-preserving therapy. The average age at the initiation of PBT was 35 (14–97) months, mean follow-up was 22 (2–46) months. Prior to PBT, all eyes were treated with systemic chemotherapy and a mean number of 7.1 additional treatments. Indication for PBT was non-feasibility of intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) in 10 eyes, tumor recurrence after IAC in another 3 eyes and diffuse infiltrating retinoblastoma in 2 eyes. Six eyes (40%) were enucleated after a mean time interval of 4.8 (1–8) months. Cataract formation was the most common complication affecting 44.4% of the preserved eyes, yet 77.8% achieved a visual acuity of >20/200. Two of the 15 children treated developed metastatic disease during follow-up, resulting in a 13.3% metastasis rate. PBT is a useful treatment modality as a rescue therapy in retinoblastoma eyes with an eye-preserving rate of 60%. As patients are at lifetime risk of SPTs consistent monitoring is mandatory.

Retinoblastoma and other eye tumors in childhood are rare diseases. Many eye tumors are the first signs of a genetic tumor predisposition syndrome and the affected children carry a higher risk of developing other cancers later in life. Clinical and genetic data of all children with eye tumors diagnosed between 2013–2018 in Germany and Austria were collected in a multicenter prospective observational study. In five years, 300 children were recruited into the study: 287 with retinoblastoma, 7 uveal melanoma, 3 ciliary body medulloepithelioma, 2 retinal astrocytoma, 1 meningioma of the optic nerve extending into the eye. Heritable retinoblastoma was diagnosed in 44% of children with retinoblastoma. One child with meningioma of the optic nerve extending into the eye was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis 2. No pathogenic constitutional variant in DICER1 was detected in a child with medulloepithelioma while two children did not receive genetic analysis. Because of the known association with tumor predisposition syndromes, genetic counseling should be offered to all children with eye tumors. Children with a genetic predisposition to cancer should receive a tailored surveillance including detailed history, physical examinations and, if indicated, imaging to screen for other cancer. Early detection of cancers may reduce mortality.

Background: The aim of this study is to examine the dosimetric influence of endorectal balloons (ERB) on rectal sparing in prostate cancer patients with implanted hydrogel rectum spacers treated with dose-escalated or hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT). Methods: Ten patients with localized prostate cancer included in the ProRegPros study and treated at our center were investigated. All patients underwent placement of hydrogel rectum spacers before planning. Two planning CTs (with and without 120 cm³ fluid-filled ERB) were applied for each patient. Dose prescription was set according to the h strategy, with 72 Gray (Gy)/2.4 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 1 cm of the seminal vesicle, and 60 Gy/2 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 2 cm of the seminal vesicle. Planning with two laterally opposed IMPT beams was performed in both CTs. Rectal dosimetry values including dose-volume statistics and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were compared for both plans (non-ERB plans vs. ERB plans). Results: For ERB plans compared with non-ERB, the reductions were 8.51 ± 5.25 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.000) and 15.76 ± 11.11 Gy (p = 0.001) for the mean and the median rectal doses, respectively. No significant reductions in rectal volumes were found after high dose levels. The use of ERB resulted in significant reduction in rectal volume after receiving 50 Gy (RBE), 40 Gy (RBE), 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), and 10 Gy (RBE) with p values of 0.034, 0.008, 0.003, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively. No differences between ERB and non-ERB plans for the anterior rectum were observed. ERB reduced posterior rectal volumes in patients who received 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), or 10 Gy (RBE), with p values of 0.019, 0.003, and 0.001, respectively. According to the NTCP models, no significant reductions were observed in mean or median rectal toxicity (late rectal bleeding ≥ 2, necrosis or stenosis, and late rectal toxicity ≥ 3) when using the ERB. Conclusion: ERB reduced rectal volumes exposed to intermediate or low dose levels. However, no significant reduction in rectal volume was observed in patients receiving high or intermediate doses. There was no benefit and also no disadvantage associated with the use of ERB for late rectal toxicity, according to available NTCP models.