An Analysis of Major Target Deviations in Craniospinal Irradiation Treatment Plans for Patients With Intermediate-Risk Medulloblastoma Within a Phase 3 Clinical Trial (Children's Oncology Group Study ACNS0331)

Abstract

PurposeCraniospinal irradiation remains an essential and yet difficult part of the treatment of patients with medulloblastoma. Whereas technological advances offer promise of increased conformity, realiance on advanced technology is not without risk, and it remains critical to carefully delineate targets. We describe examples of target deviations (TDs) in craniospinal irradiation treatment plans for postoperative patients with medulloblastoma in a phase 3 clinical trial (ACNS 0331). Methods and MaterialsThe principal investigator independently performed a review of the treatment plans and portal films of enrolled patients and evaluated the plans for TDs. TDs of dose, dose uniformity, and volume were defined as major or minor deviations. Major TDs scored as protocol violations. The effect of major TDs on event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. ResultsOf the 549 patients enrolled, 461 were available for this analysis. Thirty-two (7%) plans did not have data sufficient for TD evaluation. Major TDs were found in 32 of the 461 plans (7%). Of those, 21 were deviations of target volume alone, 7 were deviations of target dose alone, and 4 were deviations of both target volume and dose. The 25 patients with TDs of volume involved 29 sites. The most common major TDs of volume involved the brain (9 of 29) and the posterior fossa (9 of 29). On Cox proportional hazards modeling, the presence of a major TD did not statistically significantly affect EFS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-2.11; P = .9541) or OS (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-2.38; P = .8113). ConclusionsAlthough intensity modulated radiation therapy and proton therapy are promising in improving conformity and sparing organs at risk, technology does not substitute for careful anatomic definition of target volumes. The study was not powered to evaluate the effect of TDs on EFS and OS; therefore, the statistical analysis presented in this study must be interpreted with caution.