Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Localized Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Does Radiation Dose Make a Difference?

Therapeutic Outcome of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma Lesions - A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Surgical resection, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have seldom been compared for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We explored the treatment outcomes of SBRT for small HCC by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA). We compared the efficacy and safety of surgical resection, RFA and SBRT for liver-confined small HCC (three or fewer lesions with a diameter ≤5 cm). The study endpoint included the odds ratios of the 1-, 3- and 5-year progression/recurrence/disease-free survival (disease progression-free survival; DPFS) and overall survival rates, as well as severe complications. Forty-five studies included 21 468 patients. In the NMA with comparable data, SBRT had comparable 1-, 3- and 5-year DPFS but significantly worse pooled long-term overall survival (3- and 5-year overall survival) than surgical resection (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidential interval 1.3-1.89; odds ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.69, respectively). SBRT was associated with significantly better pooled 1-year DPFS compared with RFA (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.97), with the remaining outcomes being comparable. SBRT had significantly less incidence of severe complications compared with surgical resection (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.88) and RFA (odds ratio 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.94). In conclusion, for small HCCs (≤5 cm) with one to three nodules, SBRT may be favourable to reduce the risks of severe complications. In terms of DPFS, SBRT may be recommended as an alternative first-line therapy for RFA and surgical resection. The results regarding overall survival should be interpreted with caution, considering the potentially uneliminated bias. There is a clear need for well-designed randomised trials to conclusively identify real differences in efficacy between these treatments, especially SBRT and surgical resection.

Optimal stereotactic body radiotherapy dosage for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The optimal dose and fractionation scheme of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear due to different tolerated liver volumes and degrees of cirrhosis. In this study, we aimed to verify the dose-survival relationship to optimize dose selection for treatment of HCC.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 602 patients with HCC, treated with SBRT between January 2011 and March 2017. The SBRT dosage was classified into high dose, moderate dose, and low dose levels: SaRT (BED10 ≥ 100 Gy), SbRT (EQD2 > 74 Gy to BED10 < 100 Gy), and ScRT (EQD2 < 74 Gy). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), and intrahepatic control (IC) were evaluated in univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

The median tumor size was 5.6 cm (interquartile range [IQR] 1.1-21.0 cm). The median follow-up time was 50.0 months (IQR 6-100 months). High radiotherapy dose correlated with better outcomes. After classifying into the SaRT, SbRT, and ScRT groups, three notably different curves were obtained for long-term post-SBRT survival and intrahepatic control. On multivariate analysis, higher radiation dose was associated with improved OS, PFS, and intrahepatic control.

CONCLUSIONS

If tolerated by normal tissue, we recommend SaRT (BED10 ≥ 100 Gy) as a first-line ablative dose or SbRT (EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy) as a second-line radical dose. Otherwise, ScRT (EQD2 < 74 Gy) is recommended as palliative irradiation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Surgery and Radiofrequency Ablation in Two Patient Cohorts: Metastatic Liver Cancer and Hepatocellular Carcinoma

AIMS

To compare the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) with radiofrequency ablation and surgery in adult patients with metastatic liver cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two patient cohorts were assessed: liver oligometastases and HCC. For each patient cohort, a decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions over a 5-year horizon. A Markov process was embedded in the decision model to simulate the possible prognosis of cancer. Data on transition probabilities, survival, side-effects, quality of life and costs were obtained from published sources and the SABR Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) scheme. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with respect to quality-adjusted life-years. The robustness of the results was examined in a sensitivity analysis. Analyses were conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, which assumed that all three interventions were associated with the same cancer progression rates and mortality rates, SABR was the most cost-effective intervention for both patient cohorts. This conclusion was sensitive to the cancer progression rate, mortality rate and cost of interventions. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that SABR is cost-effective was 57% and 50% in liver oligometastases and HCC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a potential for SABR to be cost-effective for patients with liver oligometastases and HCC. This finding supports further investigation in clinical trials directly comparing SABR with surgery and radiofrequency ablation.