Phase II trial on SBRT for unresectable liver metastases: long-term outcome and prognostic factors of survival after 5 years of follow-up

Which Is Better for Liver SBRT: Dosimetric Comparison Between DCAT and VMAT for Liver Tumors

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is currently well-adopted as a curative treatment for primary and metastatic liver tumors. Among SBRT methods, dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are the most preferred methods. In this study, we report a comparison study measuring the dose distribution and delivery efficiency differences between DCAT and VMAT for liver SBRT. All patients who were treated with SBRT for primary or metastatic liver tumors with a curative aim between January 2016 and December 2017 at DIRAMS were enrolled in the study. For all patients, SBRT plans were designed using the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm in Monaco treatment planning system (version 5.1). The planning goals were set according to the RTOG 0813, RTOG 0915, and RTOG 1112 protocols. A plan comparison was made on the metrics of dose volume histogram, planning and delivery efficiency, monitor unit (MU), and dosimetric indices. PTV coverage was evaluated using the following: D_mean, D95%, D98%, D2%, D50%, D_max, V95%, heterogeneity index (HI), and conformality index (CI). For DCAT and VMAT, respectively, the D_mean was 5942.8 ± 409.3 cGy and 5890.6 ± 438.8 cGy, D50% was 5968.8 ± 413.1 cGy and 5954.3 ± 405.2 cGy, and CI was 1.05 ± 0.05 and 1.03 ± 0.04. The D98% and V95% were 5580.0 ± 465.3 cGy and 20.4 ± 12.0 mL for DCAT, and 5596.0 ± 478.7 cGy and 20.5 ± 12.0 mL for VMAT, respectively. For normal liver, V40, V30, V20, V17, V5, D_mean, D_max were evaluated for comparison. The V30, V20, and V10 were significantly higher in DCAT; other parameters of normal livers showed no statistically significant differences. For evaluation of intermediate dose spillage, D2_cm(%) and R50% of DCAT and VMAT were 45.8 ± 7.9 and 5.6 ± 0.9 and 45.1 ± 6.7 and 5.5 ± 1.2, respectively. Planning and delivery efficiency were evaluated using MU, Calculation time, and Delivery time. DCAT had shorter Calculation time and Delivery time with smaller MU. MU was smaller in DCAT and the average difference was 300.1 MU. For liver SBRT, DCAT is an effective alternative to VMAT plans that could meet the planning goals proposed by the RTOG SBRT protocol and increases plan and delivery effectiveness, while also ignoring the interplay effect.

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

The dosimetric impact of replacing the TG-43 algorithm by model based dose calculation for liver brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To compare treatment plans for interstitial high dose rate (HDR) liver brachytherapy with ¹⁹²Ir calculated according to current-standard TG-43U1 protocol with model-based dose calculation following TG-186 protocol.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters for liver, organs at risk (OARs) and clinical target volumes (CTVs) of 20 patient cases diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Dose calculations on a homogeneous water geometry (TG-43U1 surrogate) and on a computed tomography (CT) based geometry (TG-186) were performed using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The CTs were segmented based on a combination of assigning TG-186 recommended tissues to fixed Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges and using organ contours delineated by physicians. For the liver, V_5Gy and V_10Gy were analysed, and for OARs the dose to 1 cubic centimeter (D_1cc). Target coverage was assessed by calculating V₁₅₀, V₁₀₀, V₉₅ and V₉₀ as well as D₉₅ and D₉₀. For every DVH parameter, median, minimum and maximum values of the deviations of TG-186 from TG-43U1 were analysed.

RESULTS

TG-186-calculated dose was found to be on average lower than dose calculated with TG-43U1. The deviation of highest magnitude for liver parameters was -6.2% of the total liver volume. For OARs, the deviations were all smaller than or equal to -0.5 Gy. Target coverage deviations were as high as -1.5% of the total CTV volume and -3.5% of the prescribed dose.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that TG-43U1 overestimates dose to liver tissue compared to TG-186. This finding may be of clinical importance for cases where dose to the whole liver is the limiting factor.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver metastases: How and when?

Limited liver metastases represent a clinical challenge. Surgical approach is the most frequently reported treatment option, however, some patients are not eligible for surgical interventions. Relatively recent technologic advances have permitted the safe use of ablative techniques employed in the cure of hepatic metastases. Among these, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have emerged as valid treatments in a significant proportion of patients with intrahepatic oligometastatic disease. This review offers an up-to-date of current available literature on this issue focusing on the use and outcomes of RFA and SBRT, according to the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) criteria.

Oligometastatic Breast Cancer: Is This a Curable Entity? A Contemporary Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) remains a poorly understood entity for which no standard of care exists at this time. This review will focus on our biologic understanding of OMBC and provide an update on current treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The introduction of micro RNA expression profiling has advanced our understanding of the biologic underpinnings of OMBC. Although most of the data regarding treatment have come from retrospective studies, there are now prospective randomized trials reporting progression-free survival and overall survival improvements with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Ongoing studies designed to evaluate addition of SABR as well as other novel agents will further develop this field and provide new treatment options. A "cure" for OMBC remains elusive. With further basic research coupled with novel prospective trials, patients will hopefully enjoy increased progression-free survival and overall survival, and ideally a delay to more toxic systemic therapy.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma - a systematic review on outcome

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence is rising worldwide, especially due to increased detection of early-stage or small-sized tumors. Nevertheless, most of the patients are still not qualified for surgical resection at diagnosis due to the localization of the tumor, underlying liver disease or comorbidities. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a radiotherapy modality which can deliver a high dose of radiation to the target tissue with a high degree of precision. It shows promise in terms of efficacy and morbidity.Material and methods: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize current knowledge on patient-specific outcomes of SBRT for small HCC including overall survival, local control, the effect of dose escalation and the toxicity of the treatment. The systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). After a comprehensive database search, 16 studies (973 patients with 1034 lesions) were included in qualitative and quantitative analyses; 14 of them were retrospective.Results: Average tumor diameter was 23 mm and 95% of patients were in good general condition. Median BED10 (biologically equivalent dose calculated for α/β ratio of 10 Gy) was 100 Gy (range 59.5-180 Gy). Mean weighted local control across studies was 94%, 92% and 93% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Mean weighted overall survival across studies was 90.9%, 67.5% and 73.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. There were 171 grade 1-2 toxicities (17.5%) and 53 ≥ grade 3 toxicities (5.3%). There was no treatment-associated mortality.Conclusion: SBRT offers high local control with overall survival that is comparable with radiofrequency ablation and surgery. Quality of findings, especially on toxicities, is decreased by incomplete reporting and retrospective designs of published studies. Therefore, there is a need for better reporting and prospective studies to univocally recommend SBRT as a definitive treatment option in the guidelines for small HCCs.

Individual lymph nodes: "See it and Zap it"

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

With magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy systems such as the 1.5T MR-linac the daily anatomy can be visualized before, during and after radiation delivery. With these treatment systems, seeing metastatic nodes with MRI and zapping them with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) comes into reach. The purpose of this study is to investigate different online treatment planning strategies and to determine the planning target volume (PTV) margin needed for adequate target coverage when treating lymph node oligometastases with SBRT on the 1.5T MR-linac.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients were treated for single pelvic or para-aortic lymph node metastases on the 1.5T MR-linac with a prescribed dose of 5x7Gy with a 3 mm isotropic GTV- PTV margin. Based on the daily MRI and actual contours, a completely new treatment plan was generated for each session (adapt to shape, ATS). These were compared with plans optimized on pre-treatment CT contours after correcting for the online target position (adapt to position, ATP). At the end of each treatment session, a post-radiation delivery MRI was acquired on which the GTV was delineated to evaluate the GTV coverage and PTV margins.

RESULTS

The median PTV V35Gy was 99.9% [90.7-100%] for the clinically delivered ATS plans compared to 93.6% [76.3-99.7%] when using ATP. The median GTV V35Gy during radiotherapy delivery was 100% [98-100%] on the online planning and post-delivery MRIs for ATS and 100% [93.9-100%] for ATP, respectively. The applied 3 mm isotropic PTV margin is considered adequate.

CONCLUSION

For pelvic and para-aortic metastatic lymph nodes, online MRI-guided adaptive treatment planning results in adequate PTV and GTV coverage when taking the actual patient anatomy into account (ATS). Generally, GTV coverage remained adequate throughout the treatment session for both adaptive planning strategies. "Seeing and zapping" metastatic lymph nodes comes within reach for MRI-guided SBRT.

[Liver stereotactic body radiotherapy: Clinical features and technical consequences, results. Which treatment machine in which situation?]

Liver stereotactic body radiotherapy is a developing technique for the treatment of primary tumours and metastases. Its implementation is complex because of the particularities of the treated organ and the comorbidities of the patients. However, this technique is a treatment opportunity for patients otherwise in therapeutic impasse. The scientific evidence of liver stereotactic body radiotherapy has been considered by the French health authority as insufficient for its widespread use outside specialized and experienced centers, despite a growing and important number of retrospective and prospective studies, but few comparative data. This article focuses on the specific features of stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver treatments and the results of published studies of liver stereotactic body radiotherapy performed with classic linear accelerators and dedicated radiosurgery units.