It was reported that proton beam therapy (PBT) reduced the normal brain dose compared with X-ray therapy for pediatric brain tumors. We considered whether there was not the condition that PBT was more disadvantageous than intensity modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D conventional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for treatment of pediatric brain tumors about the dose reduction for the normal brain when the tumor location or tumor size were different. The subjects were 12 patients treated with PBT at our institute, including 6 cases of ependymoma treated by local irradiation and 6 cases of germinoma treated by irradiation of all four cerebral ventricles. IMRT and 3D-CRT treatment plans were made for these 12 cases, with optimization using the same planning conditions as those for PBT. Model cases were also compared using sphere targets with different diameters or locations in the brain, and the normal brain doses with PBT, IMRT and 3D-CRT were compared using the same planning conditions. PBT significantly reduced the average dose to normal brain tissue compared to 3D-CRT and IMRT in all cases. There was no difference between 3D-CRT and IMRT. The average normal brain doses for PBT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT were 5.1–34.8% (median 14.9%), 11.0–48.5% (23.8%), and 11.5–53.1% (23.5%), respectively, in ependymoma cases; and 42.3–61.2% (48.9%), 54.5–74.0% (62.8%), and 56.3–72.1% (61.2%), respectively, in germinoma cases. In the model cases, PBT significantly reduced the average normal brain dose for larger tumors and for tumors located at the periphery of the brain. PBT reduces the average dose to normal brain tissue, compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT. The effect is higher for a tumor that is larger or located laterally.

[Objective] The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of particle beam therapy (PT) with photon radiotherapy (RT) for treatment of skull base chordoma. [Methods] A systematic review was conducted for skull base chordoma treated with PT or photon RT reported from 1990 to 2022. Data were extracted for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), late adverse events, age, gender, gross total resection (GTR) rates, tumor volume, total irradiation dose, and treatment modality. Random-effects meta-regression analysis with the treatment modality as an explanatory variable was performed for each outcome to compare the modalities. [Results] A meta-analysis of 30 selected articles found 3- and 5-year OS rates for PT vs. photon RT or combined photon RT/proton beam therapy (PBT) of 90.8% (95% CI: 87.4–93.3%) vs. 89.5% (95% CI: 83.0–93.6%), p = 0.6543; 80.0% (95% CI: 75.7–83.6%) vs. 89.5% (95% CI: 83.0–93.6%), p = 0.6787. The 5-year PFS rates for PT vs. photon RT or photon RT/PBT were 67.8% (95% CI: 56.5–76.7%) vs. 40.2% (95% CI: 31.6–48.7%), p = 0.0004. A random-effects model revealed that the treatment modality (PT vs. photon RT or photon RT/PBT) was not a significant factor for 3-year OS (p = 0.42) and 5-year OS (p = 0.11), but was a significant factor for 5-year PFS (p < 0.0001). The rates of brain necrosis were 8–50% after PT and 0–4% after photon RT or photon RT/PBT. [Conclusion] This study shows that PT results in higher PFS compared to photon RT for skull base chordoma, but that there is a tendency for a higher incidence of brain necrosis with PT. Publication and analysis of further studies is needed to validate these findings.

The purpose of this study was to analyze renal late effects after proton beam therapy (PBT) for pediatric malignant tumors. A retrospective study was performed in 11 patients under 8 years of age who received PBT between 2013 and 2018. The kidney was exposed in irradiation of the primary lesion in all cases. Kidney volume and contour were measured on CT or MRI. Dose volume was calculated with a treatment-planning system. The median follow-up was 24 months (range, 11–57 months). In irradiated kidneys and control contralateral kidneys, the median volume changes were −5.63 (−20.54 to 7.20) and 5.23 (−2.01 to 16.73) mL/year; and the median % volume changes at 1 year were −8.55% (−47.52 to 15.51%) and 9.53% (−2.13 to 38.78%), respectively. The median relative volume change for irradiated kidneys at 1 year was −16.42% (−52.21 to −4.53%) relative to control kidneys. Kidneys irradiated with doses of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 GyE had volume reductions of 0.16%, 0.90%, 1.24%, 2.34%, and 8.2% per irradiated volume, respectively. The larger the irradiated volume, the greater the kidney volume was lost. Volume reduction was much greater in patients aged 4–7 years than in those aged 2–3 years. The results suggest that kidneys exposed to PBT in treatment of pediatric malignant tumor show continuous atrophy in follow-up. The degree of atrophy is increased with a higher radiation dose, greater irradiated volume, and older age. However, with growth and maturation, the contralateral kidney becomes progressively larger and is less affected by radiation.

We present the clinical course of a pediatric patient with large rhabdomyosarcoma of the body trunk who received proton beam therapy (PBT). A 1-year-old girl was diagnosed with stage IV alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma in 2008. A large tumor was located in the central diaphragm and had infiltrated the liver and pericardium with peritoneal dissemination. Chemotherapy was immediately started with six courses of vincristine, actinomycin-D and cyclophosphamide (VAC) firstly, and secondly followed by 2 courses of ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE), but a large tumor of 15 cm in size remained. The tumor was inoperable because of its location, and photon radiotherapy could not be performed due to limited liver tolerance. The patient was referred to our hospital and received PBT at a dose of 54 GyE in 30 fractions in June 2009. The tumor quickly responded and 95 % of volume reduction was achieved at the end of PBT. However, marginal recurrence in the caudal part of the irradiated field, where we reduced the proton dose because of the presence of the intestine, was detected in August 2010. The recurrent tumor size was less than 1 cm. Chemotherapy with VAC followed by topotecan and carboplatin (TC) was again tried, but the tumor size was stable. Repeated PBT was not possible because of limited intestinal tolerance; therefore, intraoperative radiotherapy was conducted with 20 Gy of electron beams in April 2011. The tumor was subsequently well controlled, but secondary myelodysplastic syndrome developed and the patient died of hemophagocytic syndrome after umbilical cord blood transplantation in May 2012. PBT was performed safely and effectively for a 1-year-old girl with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma with liver and cardiac invasion that was resistant to surgery and chemotherapy. This case illustrates that PBT can be useful in cases that are difficult to treat with conventional radiotherapy.

Patients who receive radiation therapy sometimes complain of a light flash during irradiation. The details of the characteristics of this light have not been described. To evaluate light flashes during photon and proton radiotherapy. A prospective observational study was performed in all adult patients (≥20 years old) who received photon and proton therapy at two centers between January 2019 and August 2020, except for patients who could not communicate and those with visual abnormality. Evaluations were obtained for the presence or absence of light flashes, light darkness (7 levels), light intensity (5 levels), frequency, light movement, light flashing, and time seeing the light, using a weekly checklist. A total of 650 courses were examined for 621 patients, of whom 416 received photon radiotherapy and 205 received proton beam therapy. The checklist indicated that 88 patients (16.1%) sensed light during photon or proton radiotherapy. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the factors that were significantly associated with a light flash were a higher retina dose and younger age (p < 0.001). Light flashes were seen by only 35/524 patients (6.7%) for whom the retina was not irradiated, but by 13/33 (39.4%) and 41/64 (64.1%) with maximum isodose lines for the retina of 10–50% and 60–100%, respectively. The numbers of patients who sensed blue, purple, yellow, red, white and other colors were 52, 15, 15, 9, 16 and 8, respectively (multiple selections possible). Light movement was observed by 52 patients (59%). The location of the light was defined as near, far, and middle by 70, 13, and 5 patients, respectively. The median time the light was seen was 10 s. Many patients sense light flashes during radiotherapy. The retina dose and a younger age were significantly associated with the frequency of light flashes.