Asklid Anna, Kristensen Ingrid, Martinsson Ulla, Nilsson Martin, Blomstrand Malin, Agrup Måns, Flejmer Anna, Svärd Anna-Maja, Fröjd Charlotta, Almhagen Erik, Engellau Jacob, Embring Anna
Department of Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Oncology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Acta Oncol. 2025 Sep 2;64:1160-1167. doi: 10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43726.
In 2015, a proton therapy (PT) facility was established in Sweden with one aim being to ensure access for all children expected to benefit from PT. Despite potential dosimetric advantages and full subsidisation, PT is not always selected. This study explores reasons for choosing alternative radiotherapy (RT) modalities in a paediatric population.
RT courses delivered to patients ≤ 18 years during 2016-2023 were identified from a national registry. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed to identify reasons for not selecting PT.
Only 34% (n = 275) of all courses identified were delivered with PT. Of the remaining 66% (n = 544), 90% were photon RT, 9% combined PT and photon RT, and 1% electron RT. Among photon RT courses, 97% were delivered with conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), 2% with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), and 1% with brachytherapy. The most common reason for choosing photons was non-curative intent (35%), followed by equal or superior expected outcome compared to PT (23%), total body irradiation (TBI) (15%), and uncertainties due to air, organ motion, or metal in field (15%). Dosimetric comparison led to the selection of a favourable or equal photon plan in 8%. Logistical, social, and technical reasons constituted 4%.
While PT can reduce radiation exposure to healthy tissues, particularly important in children, clinical, logistical, and technical factors often necessitate alternative RT modalities. This study highlights the importance of individualised RT planning and multidisciplinary collaboration to balance medical, technical, and practical considerations to ensure optimal treatment approach in every child.
2015年,瑞典建立了一个质子治疗(PT)设施,其目标之一是确保所有有望从PT中受益的儿童都能接受治疗。尽管PT具有潜在的剂量学优势且全额补贴,但并非总是被选择。本研究探讨了在儿科人群中选择其他放射治疗(RT)方式的原因。
从国家登记处识别出2016 - 2023年期间为18岁及以下患者提供的RT疗程。对病历进行回顾性审查,以确定未选择PT的原因。
在所有识别出的疗程中,只有34%(n = 275)采用了PT。其余66%(n = 544)中,90%为光子RT,9%为PT与光子RT联合,1%为电子RT。在光子RT疗程中,97%采用传统外照射放疗(EBRT),2%采用立体定向放疗(SRT),1%采用近距离放疗。选择光子的最常见原因是非治愈性意图(35%),其次是与PT相比预期结果相同或更好(23%)、全身照射(TBI)(15%)以及由于射野内空气、器官运动或金属导致的不确定性(15%)。剂量学比较导致8%的患者选择了更优或同等的光子计划。后勤、社会和技术原因占4%。
虽然PT可以减少对健康组织的辐射暴露,这在儿童中尤为重要,但临床、后勤和技术因素往往需要采用其他RT方式。本研究强调了个体化RT规划和多学科协作的重要性,以平衡医学、技术和实际考虑因素,确保为每个儿童提供最佳治疗方案。