Journal of Molecular Oncology Research

Reach Us +44 7460731551

Rapid Communication - Journal of Molecular Oncology Research (2022) Volume 6, Issue 3

Post-treatment neuroendocrine outcomes among pediatric brain tumor Patients: Difference between proton and photon therapy.

Lucas Anthony*

Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

*Corresponding Author:
Lucas Anthony
Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
E-mail:[email protected]

Received: 22- Feb -2022, Manuscript No. AAMOR-22- 59406;  Editor assigned 24- Feb -2022, PreQC No. AAMOR,-22- 59406 (PQ); Reviewed:  10- Mar-2022, QC No AAMOR-22- 59406; Revised: 17- Mar -2022, Manuscript No. AAMOR-22- 59406 (R); Published: 25- Mar -2022, DOI: DOI: 10.35841/aamor-6.3.114

Citation: Post-treatment neuroendocrine outcomes among pediatric brain tumorPatients: Difference between proton and photon therapy. J Mol Oncol Res. 2022;6(3):114

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Molecular Oncology Research


Pediatric brain tumor patients are helpless to radiotherapy (RT) sequelae counting endocrinopathies. We compared post-RT neuroendocrine results between pediatric brain tumor patients getting photons (XRT) versus protons. Employing a tentatively kept up single-institution database, we analyzed 112 pediatric essential brain tumor patients (80 XRT, 32 PRT) from 1996- 2019. Patient/treatment characteristics and endocrinopathy analyze (development hormone lack (GHD), sex hormone insufficiency [SHD], hypothyroidism, and prerequisite of hormone substitution (HRT) were gotten through chart audit. Univariable/multivariable calculated relapse recognized neuroendocrine result indicators. Time-adjusted penchant score models accounted for treatment sort. Craniospinal light (CSI) patients were assessed as a sub-cohort.


Endocrinopathies, Proton radiation, Medulloblastoma


Whereas brain radiotherapy (RT) plays a basic part within the administration of pediatric brain tumors, it is additionally related with neuroendocrine sequalae such as development, thyroid, and sex hormone lacks, particularly through radiation impacts on the hypothalamic-pituitary pivot. More youthful patients appear higher rates of post-radiation endocrinopathy, proposing that children are particularly defenseless. Determination of development or sex hormone lack amid childhood can accelerate psychosocial stressors counting problematic development or disappointment to move through puberty. Obviously, patients who create endocrinopathies at more youthful ages have appeared poorer quality of life in ranges counting enthusiastic soundness and social functionality. These impacts are kept up indeed all through adulthood and are related with expanded lifetime therapeutic costs. The degree of post-radiation endocrinopathy shows up to be a dose-dependent- wonder, with development hormone lack being the foremost common. This differential affectability recommends potential benefits from radiation methods that offer expanded saving of the hypothalamic-pituitary hub [1].

Compared to photon radiation (XRT), proton radiation (PRT) offers the potential for decreased radiation poisonous quality due to the Bragg Top phenomenon. Comparable survival results have been watched in XRT and PRT brain tumor cohorts, in spite of the fact that it is vague on the off chance that PRT offers changes in dangers of long-term sequelae. Dosimetric ponders in medulloblastoma patients have appeared that proton craniospinal light (CSI) conveys less hypothalamic-pituitary poisonous quality compared to routine photon or IMRT medications. There's a need of randomized information for photon versus proton CSI in pediatric brain tumor patients; subsequently, an understanding of radiationassociated endocrinopathy in this persistent populace must depend on cross-sectional and review cohort considers. Two past thinks about have inspected paediatric neuroendocrine results taking after proton versus photon cranial radiation with blended comes about [2].

One ponder of standard chance medulloblastoma patients3 detailed a lower chance of hypothyroidism, sex hormone lack, and necessity of hormone substitution treatment among patients accepting proton treatment. Another ponder, in any case, found no critical contrasts by methodology. Quiet, tumor, and treatment covariates were compared between XRT and PRT cohorts utilizing Fisher’s correct and Wilcoxon rank whole tests. We inspected affiliations between covariates and each neuroendocrine result utilizing univariable calculated relapse. We performed multivariable calculated relapse to evaluate the relationship between radiation methodology and each neuroendocrine result. Multivariable models balanced for follow-up time and included radiation methodology, covariates noteworthy on univariable examination, and covariates that were altogether distinctive between treatment cohorts. Relapse coefficients with a p-value.

We evaluated adjust between treatment and balanced control bunches utilizing outright standardized cruel contrasts for each covariate. To address cohort heterogeneity by treatment areas and to investigate the contrasts among patients getting CSI, we performed a sub-analysis on patients who gotten craniospinal illumination. We inspected the same results with the same measurable examination strategies limited to patients getting CSI. Univariable and multivariable calculated relapse examinations inspected the probability of neuroendocrine result bookkeeping for important covariates such as treatment methodology, histology, and add up to medicine measurements. Treatment sort (proton versus photons) was not altogether related with creating hypothyroidism, development hormone lack, sex hormone lack, or hormone substitution treatment results (all p >0.05) in both univariable and multivariable models. In this think about, we compared neuroendocrine results in a cohort of pediatric essential brain tumor patients taking after either photon or proton radiation after controlling for follow-up time. There were no critical contrasts in neuroendocrine results within the in general cohort; be that as it may, a sub-analysis of patients accepting CSI appeared that compared to XRT, PRT was related with lower chances of creating hypothyroidism over different factual approaches.

Non-medulloblastoma patients had lower chances of creating hypothyroidism, development hormone lack, and requiring hormone substitution treatment. Usually likely attributed to the impacts of CSI, instead of an inalienable endocrinopathy chance, as CSI is the standard of care for medulloblastoma patients. Our discoveries back the proceeded utilize of protons for CSI as required in pediatric brain tumor patients to diminish future chance of endocrinopathy. Inside the CSI cohort, the frequency of hypothyroidism was 49% (XRT) and 17% (PRT) at a middle follow-up of and a long time separately; these rates are reliable with those already detailed in pediatric medulloblastoma cohorts. Compared to XRT, PRT CSI was related with essentially lower chances of creating hypothyroidism on multivariable and IPTW affinity score balanced investigation. The consistency between a few measurable strategies gives solid prove to back our discoveries. Furthermore, comparative comes about were detailed by Eaton et al3 in a cohort of standard-risk medulloblastoma patients [3].

The lower chance of hypothyroidism watched among patients getting PRT CSI may be credited to diminished hypothalamic-pituitary radiation amid boost medications and diminished thyroid presentation from spinal field exit dosages. Of note, our results did not recognize between essential and central hypothyroidism. In an earlier cohort of pediatric medulloblastoma patients, no measurable affiliation between radiation methodology and the hazard of generally, essential, and central hypothyroidism. This error with our discoveries for in general hypothyroidism may be clarified by heterogeneity in tumor area or sorts in our ponder, as we analysed other tumor sorts other than medulloblastoma. Essentially, variety within the chance of hypothyroidism and prerequisite for hormone treatment may be due to the contrasts in dosage to the pituitary-hypothalamic pivot. patients accepting proton CSI for essential brain tumors had a decreased chance of creating hypothyroidism compared to patients getting photon CSI. Patients accepting proton CSI too had a lower frequency of sex-hormone insufficiency [4]. Our discoveries include to the current writing on pediatric radiation-associated endocrinopathy and propose that proton CSI is related with moved forward neuroendocrine results in a real-world clinical setting. Future imminent comparative thinks about are required, particularly with collaborative registries such as the Pediatric Proton/Photon Consortium Registry24, and may give assist prove on the potential of proton radiation for moving forward quiet results and quality of life [5].


  1. Vatner RE, Niemierko A, Misra M, et al.endocrine deficiency as a function of radiation dose to the hypothalamus and pituitary in pediatric and young adult patients with brain tumors J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(28):2854-862.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Vern-Gross TZ, Bradley JA, Rotondo RL, et al. Fertility in childhood cancer survivors following cranial irradiation for primary central nervous system and skull base tumors. Radiother Oncol. 2015;117(2);195-05.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Heinks K, Boekhoff S, Hoffmann A, et al. Quality of life and growth after childhood craniopharyngioma: results of the multinational trial kraniopharyngeom 2007. Endocrine. 2018;59(2):364-72.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Mailhot Vega R, Kim J, Hollander A, et al.Cost effectiveness of proton versus photon radiation therapy with respect to the risk of growth hormone deficiency in children. Cancer. 2015;12(10):1694-702.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Merchant TE, Rose SR, Bosley C, et al.growth hormone secretion after conformal radiation therapy in pediatric patients with localized brain tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(36):4776-780.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App