MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus electronic databases to identify eligible reports on cognitive changes following PT of PBT according to PRISMA guidelines. Reports were extracted for information on demographics and cognitive outcomes. Then, they were systematically reviewed based on three themes: (1) comparison with photon therapy, (2) comparison with baseline cognitive measures, to population normative mean or radiotherapy-naïve PBT patients and (3) effects of dose distribution to cognition.
RESULTS: Thirteen reports (median size (range): 70 (12-144)) were included. Four reports compared the cognitive outcome between PBT patients treated with proton to photon therapy and nine compared with baseline/normative mean/radiotherapy naïve from which two reported the effects of dose distribution. Reports found significantly poorer cognitive outcome among patients treated with photon therapy compared with proton therapy especially in general cognition and working memory. Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) was consistently associated with poorer cognitive outcome while focal therapy was associated with minor cognitive change/difference. In limited reports available, higher doses to the hippocampus and temporal lobes were implicated to larger cognitive change.
CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests that PT causes less cognitive deficits compared with photon therapy. Children who underwent focal therapy with proton were consistently shown to have low risk of cognitive deficit suggesting the need for future studies to separate them from CSI. Evidence on the effect of dose distribution to cognition in PT is yet to mature.
METHODS: Five APT quantification methods, including asymmetry analysis and its variants as well as two Lorentzian model-based methods, were applied to data acquired from six rats that underwent middle cerebral artery occlusion scanned at 9.4T. Diffusion and perfusion-weighted images, and water relaxation time maps were also acquired to study the relationship of these conventional imaging modalities with the different APT quantification methods.
RESULTS: The APT ischemic area estimates had varying sizes (Jaccard index: 0.544 ≤ J ≤ 0.971) and had varying correlations in their distributions (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.104 ≤ r ≤ 0.995), revealing discrepancies in the quantified ischemic areas. The Lorentzian methods produced the highest contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs; 1.427 ≤ CNR ≤ 2.002), but generated APT ischemic areas that were comparable in size to the cerebral blood flow (CBF) deficit areas; asymmetry analysis and its variants produced APT ischemic areas that were smaller than the CBF deficit areas but larger than the apparent diffusion coefficient deficit areas, though having lower CNRs (0.561 ≤ CNR ≤ 1.083).
CONCLUSION: There is a need to further investigate the accuracy and correlation of each quantification method with the pathophysiology using a larger scale multi-imaging modality and multi-time-point clinical study. Future studies should include the magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry results alongside the findings of the study to facilitate the comparison of results between different centers and also the published literature.