Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Pediatric Oncology

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1644839

Analysis of brain necrosis and secondary cancers after proton beam therapy for pediatric intracranial tumors: A single-center retrospective study

Provisionally accepted
Masashi  MizumotoMasashi Mizumoto1*Hiroko  FukushimaHiroko Fukushima2Yoshiko  OshiroYoshiko Oshiro3Takashi  SaitoTakashi Saito1Ai  MuroiAi Muroi4Yuni  YamakiYuni Yamaki2Sho  HosakaSho Hosaka2Masako  InabaMasako Inaba2Toshitaka  IshiguroToshitaka Ishiguro5Masahiko  HaradaMasahiko Harada1Hikaru  NiitsuHikaru Niitsu1Toshiki  IshidaToshiki Ishida1Taisuke  SumiyaTaisuke Sumiya1Keiichiro  BabaKeiichiro Baba1Masatoshi  NakamuraMasatoshi Nakamura1,6Haruko  NumajiriHaruko Numajiri1Kei  NakaiKei Nakai6Hideyuki  SakuraiHideyuki Sakurai6
  • 1Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 2Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 3Tsukuba Medical Center Byoin, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 4neurosurgery, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 5Radiology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 6Tsukuba Daigaku Fuzoku Byoin, Tsukuba, Japan

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly used for pediatric intracranial tumors due to lower long-term radiation-associated toxicities. However, data on late adverse effects, particularly brain necrosis and intracranial secondary cancer, remain limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of these events following PBT in pediatric patients treated at a single center.Procedure: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 189 patients under 20 years of age who received PBT for intracranial tumors between 1991 and 2023. Clinical information, irradiation parameters, concurrent chemotherapy, and follow-up outcomes were collected. Brain necrosis and intracranial secondary cancers were assessed based on events presenting with grade ≥2 clinical symptoms.Results: Among 151 patients with sufficient follow-up data (median follow-up: 41.7 months), two cases of brain necrosis (1.3%) and two cases of intracranial secondary cancer (1.3%) were identified. The 5-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% (95% CI: 0-5.4%) for brain necrosis and 2.7% (95% CI: 0-6.4%) for intracranial secondary cancer. These respective incidence rates were similar for patients followed for more than two years (n=94), and slightly higher at 2.7% and 3.1% for those receiving a total dose >50 Gy (n=134). Among patients treated with PBT alone (n=125), the incidence was 1.7% for brain necrosis and 3.6% for secondary malignancy.Conclusions: This single-center retrospective study shows a low incidence of brain necrosis and secondary malignancy following PBT for pediatric patients with intracranial tumors. These findings indicate a favorable long-term safety profile of PBT in this population.

Keywords: Brain, Brain necrosis, secondary cancer, proton beam therapy, particle therapy pediatric, radiation toxicity

Received: 10 Jun 2025; Accepted: 26 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Mizumoto, Fukushima, Oshiro, Saito, Muroi, Yamaki, Hosaka, Inaba, Ishiguro, Harada, Niitsu, Ishida, Sumiya, Baba, Nakamura, Numajiri, Nakai and Sakurai. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Masashi Mizumoto, Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.