Practice Patterns of Reirradiation for Brain and Spinal Tumors—An International Survey From the Reirradiation Collaborative Group (ReCOG) Journal Article
| Authors: | Chen, X. S.; Zhang, L.; Ajithkumar, T.; Butala, A. A.; Kim, M. M.; Mayo, C.; Rosen, B. S.; Shen, C. J.; Murray, L. |
| Article Title: | Practice Patterns of Reirradiation for Brain and Spinal Tumors—An International Survey From the Reirradiation Collaborative Group (ReCOG) |
| Abstract: | Purpose: An international workshop was convened by the Reirradiation Collaborative Group. We conducted a survey among the invited attendants to assess practice patterns of reirradiation for central nervous system tumors. Methods and Materials: A web-based survey regarding central nervous system reirradiation was distributed to an international group of radiation oncologists and medical physicists via email. Results: Sixty-six respondents from 20 countries completed at least one section of the survey. The most important clinical considerations were treatment goal, degree of overlap, and cumulative dose. Among technical challenges, uncertainties in tolerance of organs at risk (OARs), tissue recovery factors (TRFs) and dose accumulation ranked the highest. Most respondents (68%) used a planning OAR volume with 0 to 3 mm margin. Highly conformal radiation techniques were preferred, including stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine (85%), intensity modulated radiation therapy for adult primary brain tumors (93%), and intensity modulated radiation therapy (100%) and proton therapy (83%) for pediatric cases. Most performed dose accumulation (65%) and evaluated cumulative biological (ie, equieffective) dose (88%). Sixty-one percent preferred rigid registration, whereas 35% used deformable registration, most commonly in pediatric cases (67%). The most frequently used α/β value for OARs was 2 Gy (76%). There was no clear consensus on OAR tolerance for any disease site. Different dose metrics were used for evaluation, including Dmax (48%) and D0.1cc (48%). Most (79%) considered time intervals between radiation courses. For adult primary brain tumors and brain metastasis, 50% and 46% recommended against reirradiation within a short interval (3-6 months). Most respondents (52%) used time dependent TRFs. Conclusions: Among respondents, there are substantial variations in approaches to reirradiation (eg, addition of systemic therapy) and uncertainties in technical implementation (eg, OAR tolerance, TRF, and dose accumulation). Future collaborative registry-based and prospective studies should help address these uncertainties. © 2025 American Society for Radiation Oncology |
| Journal Title: | Practical Radiation Oncology |
| ISSN: | 1879-8519 |
| Publisher: | Elsevier Inc. |
| Publication status: | Online ahead of print |
| Date Published: | 2025-01-01 |
| Online Publication Date: | 2025-01-01 |
| Language: | English |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.prro.2025.04.003 |
| PUBMED: | 40280482 |
| PROVIDER: | scopus |
| DOI/URL: | |
| Notes: | Article -- Source: Scopus |
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
Related MSK Work