Home > Publications database > Radiotherapy with Helium Ions Has the Potential to Improve Both Endocrine and Neurocognitive Outcome in Pediatric Patients with Ependymoma. > print

001     186239
005     20240229145739.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3390/cancers14235865
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:36497348
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a altmetric:139622766
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2022-03036
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Wickert, Ricarda
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Radiotherapy with Helium Ions Has the Potential to Improve Both Endocrine and Neurocognitive Outcome in Pediatric Patients with Ependymoma.
260 _ _ |a Basel
|c 2022
|b MDPI
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1670858031_14295
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Ependymomas are the third most-frequent pediatric brain tumors. To prevent local recurrence, the resection site should be irradiated. Compared to photon radiation treatment, proton therapy often achieves even better results regarding target coverage and organ-sparing. Due to their physical properties, helium ions could further reduce side effects, providing better protection of healthy tissue despite similar target coverage. In our in silico study, 15 pediatric ependymoma patients were considered. All patients underwent adjuvant radiotherapeutic treatment with active-scanned protons at Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT). Both helium ion and highly conformal IMRT plans were calculated to evaluate the potential dosimetric advantage of ion beam therapy compared to the current state-of-the-art photon-based treatments. To estimate the potential clinical benefit of helium ions, normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were calculated. Target coverage was comparable in all three modalities. As expected, the integral dose absorbed by healthy brain tissue could be significantly reduced with protons by up to -48% vs. IMRT. Even compared to actively scanned protons, relative dose reductions for critical neuronal structures of up to another -39% were achieved when using helium ions. The dose distribution of helium ions is significantly superior when compared to proton therapy and IMRT due to the improved sparing of OAR. In fact, previous studies could clearly demonstrate that the dosimetric advantage of protons translates into a measurable clinical benefit for pediatric patients with brain tumors. Given the dose-response relationship of critical organs at risk combined with NTCP calculation, the results of our study provide a strong rationale that the use of helium ions has the potential to even further reduce the risk for treatment related sequelae.
536 _ _ |a 315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315
|c POF4-315
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 7 |a IMRT
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a ependymoma
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a helium ions
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a ion beam therapy
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a late sequelae
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a normal tissue complication probability
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a pediatric brain tumors
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a protons
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Tessonnier, Thomas
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Deng, Maximilian
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Adeberg, Sebastian
|0 0000-0001-8463-514X
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Seidensaal, Katharina
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Hoeltgen, Line
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Debus, Jürgen
|0 P:(DE-He78)8714da4e45acfa36ce87c291443a9218
|b 6
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Herfarth, Klaus
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Harrabi, Semi B
|b 8
773 _ _ |a 10.3390/cancers14235865
|g Vol. 14, no. 23, p. 5865 -
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2527080-1
|n 23
|p 5865
|t Cancers
|v 14
|y 2022
|x 2072-6694
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:186239
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 6
|6 P:(DE-He78)8714da4e45acfa36ce87c291443a9218
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Bildgebung und Radioonkologie
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2022
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b CANCERS : 2021
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2022-01-24T07:56:58Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2022-01-24T07:56:58Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Blind peer review
|d 2022-01-24T07:56:58Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2022-01-24T07:56:58Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1190
|2 StatID
|b Biological Abstracts
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a IF >= 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9905
|2 StatID
|b CANCERS : 2021
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2022-11-30
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2022-11-30
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331
|k E050
|l E050 KKE Strahlentherapie
|x 0
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331
|k HD01
|l DKTK HD zentral
|x 1
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21