1
|
Burkoň P, Trna J, Slávik M, Němeček R, Kazda T, Pospíšil P, Dastych M, Eid M, Novotný I, Procházka T, Vrzal M. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) of Pancreatic Cancer-A Critical Review and Practical Consideration. Biomedicines 2022; 10:biomedicines10102480. [PMID: 36289742 PMCID: PMC9599229 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10102480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2022] [Revised: 09/18/2022] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the developed world and is predicted to become the second by 2030. A cure may be achieved only with surgical resection of an early diagnosed disease. Surgery for more advanced disease is challenging and can be contraindicated for many reasons. Neoadjuvant therapy may improve the probability of achieving R0 resection. It consists of systemic treatment followed by radiation therapy applied concurrently or sequentially with cytostatics. A novel approach to irradiation, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), has the potential to improve treatment results. SBRT can deliver higher doses of radiation to the tumor in only a few treatment fractions. It has attracted significant interest for pancreatic cancer patients, as it is completed quickly, requires less time away from full-dose chemotherapy, and is well-tolerated than conventional radiotherapy. In this review, we aim to provide the reader with a basic overview of current evidence for SBRT indications in the treatment of pancreatic tumors. In the second part of the review, we focus on practical information with respect to SBRT treatment plan preparation the performance of such therapy. Finally, we discuss future directions related to the use of magnetic resonance linear accelerators.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Petr Burkoň
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 57 Brno, Czech Republic
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Jan Trna
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
- Correspondence: (J.T.); (M.S.)
| | - Marek Slávik
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 57 Brno, Czech Republic
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Correspondence: (J.T.); (M.S.)
| | - Radim Němeček
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Tomáš Kazda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 57 Brno, Czech Republic
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Petr Pospíšil
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 57 Brno, Czech Republic
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Milan Dastych
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Brno, Jihlavska 340/20, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Michal Eid
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Jihlavska 340/20, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Ivo Novotný
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Tomáš Procházka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 57 Brno, Czech Republic
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Miroslav Vrzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty Kopec 7, 656 57 Brno, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lu Q, Zhou C, Zhang H, Liang L, Zhang Q, Chen X, Xu X, Zhao G, Ma J, Gao Y, Peng Q, Li S. A multimodal model fusing multiphase contrast-enhanced CT and clinical characteristics for predicting lymph node metastases of pancreatic cancer. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [PMID: 35905729 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac858e] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2022] [Accepted: 07/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Objective. To develop a multimodal model that combines multiphase contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) imaging and clinical characteristics, including experts’ experience, to preoperatively predict lymph node metastasis (LNM) in pancreatic cancer patients. Methods. We proposed a new classifier fusion strategy (CFS) based on a new evidential reasoning (ER) rule (CFS-nER) by combining nomogram weights into a previous ER rule-based CFS. Three kernelled support tensor machine-based classifiers with plain, arterial, and venous phases of CECT as the inputs, respectively, were constructed. They were then fused based on the CFS-nER to construct a fusion model of multiphase CECT. The clinical characteristics were analyzed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression to screen risk factors, which were used to construct correspondent risk factor-based classifiers. Finally, the fusion model of the three phases of CECT and each risk factor-based classifier were fused further to construct the multimodal model based on our CFS-nER, named MMM-nER. This study consisted of 186 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from four clinical centers in China, 88 (47.31%) of whom had LNM. Results. The fusion model of the three phases of CECT performed better overall than single and two-phase fusion models; this implies that the three considered phases of CECT were supplementary and complemented one another. The MMM-nER further improved the predictive performance, which implies that our MMM-nER can complement the supplementary information between CECT and clinical characteristics. The MMM-nER had better predictive performance than based on previous classifier fusion strategies, which presents the advantage of our CFS-nER. Conclusion. We proposed a new CFS-nER, based on which the fusion model of the three phases of CECT and MMM-nER were constructed and performed better than all compared methods. MMM-nER achieved an encouraging performance, implying that it can assist clinicians in noninvasively and preoperatively evaluating the lymph node status of pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
|
3
|
Maximizing Tumor Control and Limiting Complications With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 110:206-216. [PMID: 33358561 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2020] [Revised: 11/04/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy is being increasingly used for pancreatic cancer (PCa), particularly in patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable disease. A wide variety of dose fractionation schemes have been reported in the literature. This HyTEC review uses tumor control probability models to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the various SBRT treatment regimens used in the treatment of patients with localized PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS A PubMed search was performed to review the published literature on the use of hypofractionated SBRT (usually in 1-5 fractions) for PCa in various clinical scenarios (eg, preoperative [neoadjuvant], borderline resectable, and locally advanced PCa). The linear quadratic model with α/β= 10 Gy was used to address differences in fractionation. Logistic tumor control probability models were generated using maximum likelihood parameter fitting. RESULTS After converting to 3-fraction equivalent doses, the pooled reported data and associated models suggests that 1-year local control (LC) without surgery is ≈79% to 86% after the equivalent of 30 to 36 Gy in 3 fractions, showing a dose response in the range of 25 to 36 Gy, and decreasing to less than 70% 1-year LC at doses below 24 Gy in 3 fractions. The 33 Gy in 5 fraction regimen (Alliance A021501) corresponds to 28.2 Gy in 3 fractions, for which the HyTEC pooled model had 77% 1-year LC without surgery. Above an equivalent dose of 28 Gy in 3 fractions, with margin-negative resection the 1-year LC exceeded 90%. CONCLUSIONS Pooled analyses of reported tumor control probabilities for commonly used SBRT dose-fractionation schedules for PCa suggests a dose response. These findings should be viewed with caution given the challenges and limitations of this review. Additional data are needed to better understand the dose or fractionation-response of SBRT for PCa.
Collapse
|
4
|
Convolutional neural network-based automatic liver delineation on contrast-enhanced and non-contrast-enhanced CT images for radiotherapy planning. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2020; 25:981-986. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2020] [Revised: 08/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
|
5
|
Oar A, Lee M, Le H, Hruby G, Dalfsen R, Pryor D, Lee D, Chu J, Holloway L, Briggs A, Barbour A, Chander S, Ng SP, Samra J, Shakeshaft J, Goldstein D, Nguyen N, Goodman KA, Chang DT, Kneebone A. Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) Guidelines for Pancreatic Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 10:e136-e146. [PMID: 31761541 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.07.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2019] [Revised: 07/28/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Nonrandomized data exploring pancreas stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated excellent local control rates and low toxicity. Before commencing a randomized trial investigating pancreas SBRT, standardization of prescription dose, dose constraints, simulation technique, and clinical target volume delineation are required. METHODS AND MATERIALS Specialists in radiation oncology, medical oncology, hepatobiliary surgery, and gastroenterology attended 2 consecutive Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group workshops in 2017 and 2018. Sample cases were discussed during workshop contact with specifically invited international speakers highly experienced in pancreas SBRT. Furthermore, sample cases were contoured and planned between workshop contact to finalize dose constraints and clinical target volume delineation. RESULTS Over 2 separate workshops, consensus was reached on dose and simulation technique. The working group recommended a dose prescription of 40 Gy in 5 fractions. Treatment delivery during end-expiratory breath hold with triple-phase contrast enhanced computed tomography was recommended. In addition, dose constraints, stepwise contouring guidelines, and an anatomic atlas for pancreatic SBRT were developed. CONCLUSIONS Pancreas SBRT is emerging as a promising treatment modality requiring prospective evaluation in randomized studies. This work attempts to standardize dose, simulation technique, and volume delineation to support the delivery of high quality SBRT in a multicenter study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Oar
- Icon Cancer Centre, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast; Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Mark Lee
- Icon Cancer Centre, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast
| | - Hien Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
| | - George Hruby
- Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Raymond Dalfsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
| | - David Pryor
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
| | | | - Julie Chu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Lois Holloway
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, Australia; South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Institute of Medical Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Adam Briggs
- Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Andrew Barbour
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; University of Queensland, Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba, Australia
| | - Sarat Chander
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jas Samra
- Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - John Shakeshaft
- Icon Cancer Centre, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast
| | - David Goldstein
- Department of Medical Oncology, Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Nam Nguyen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Karyn A Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | | | - Andrew Kneebone
- Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chino F, Stephens SJ, Choi SS, Marin D, Kim CY, Morse MA, Godfrey DJ, Czito BG, Willett CG, Palta M. The role of external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of hepatocellular cancer. Cancer 2018; 124:3476-3489. [PMID: 29645076 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31334] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2017] [Revised: 01/10/2018] [Accepted: 01/17/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in incidence and mortality. Although the prognosis remains poor, long-term survival has improved from 3% in 1970 to an 18% 5-year survival rate today. This is likely because of the introduction of well tolerated, oral antiviral therapies for hepatitis C. Curative options for patients with HCC are often limited by underlying liver dysfunction/cirrhosis and medical comorbidities. Less than one-third of patients are candidates for surgery, which is the current gold standard for cure. Nonsurgical treatments include embolotherapies, percutaneous ablation, and ablative radiation. Technological advances in radiation delivery in the past several decades now allow for safe and effective ablative doses to the liver. Conformal techniques allow for both dose escalation to target volumes and normal tissue sparing. Multiple retrospective and prospective studies have demonstrated that hypofractionated image-guided radiation therapy, used as monotherapy or in combination with other liver-directed therapies, can provide excellent local control that is cost effective. Therefore, as the HCC treatment paradigm continues to evolve, ablative radiation treatment has moved from a palliative treatment to both a "bridge to transplant" and a definitive treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fumiko Chino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Sarah Jo Stephens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Steve S Choi
- Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Daniele Marin
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Charles Y Kim
- Department of Radiology, Interventional Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Michael A Morse
- Department of Medicine, Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Devon J Godfrey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Brian G Czito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Christopher G Willett
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Manisha Palta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Koay EJ, Hall W, Park PC, Erickson B, Herman JM. The role of imaging in the clinical practice of radiation oncology for pancreatic cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43:393-403. [PMID: 29110053 PMCID: PMC5832555 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1373-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Advances in technology have enabled the delivery of high doses of radiation therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with low rates of toxicity. Although the role of radiation for pancreatic cancer continues to evolve, encouraging results with newer techniques indicate that radiation may benefit selected patient populations. Imaging has been central to the modern successes of radiation therapy for PDAC. Here, we review the role of diagnostic imaging, imaging-based planning, and image guidance in radiation oncology practice for PDAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eugene J Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, MS 97, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| | - William Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Peter C Park
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Beth Erickson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, MS 97, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|