Current status of stereotactic body radiotherapy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Dosimetric Comparison Study Between Free Breathing and Breath Hold Techniques in Patients Treated by Liver-Directed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Background Breathing motion management is the key to delivering stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver lesions. This study aimed to compare the dosimetric parameters of liver SBRT using two different techniques: free breathing and breath hold. Method The study included 11 patients with liver metastases or hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver-directed SBRT. A dosimetric comparison was performed using dose-volume histogram analysis, evaluating parameters such as the maximum dose to 5 cc of bowel volume, mean liver dose (MLD), and liver V20 and V30. Statistical analyses were performed to compare results. Results The findings revealed that the breath hold technique resulted in significantly lower doses to the bowel and smaller volumes of normal liver tissue receiving 20 Gy (V20) and 30 Gy (V30) than the free breathing. Although there was no statistically significant difference in the MLD between the two techniques, the breath hold technique resulted in a lower MLD. Conclusion This dosimetric comparison study suggests that the breath hold technique is associated with lower radiation exposure to the bowel and normal liver tissues. Although this may not be feasible for all patients, it may be an appropriate procedure for selected individuals. Further research is needed to validate these findings in different patient populations and explore their impact on clinical outcomes and patient-reported quality of life.

MRI features of treated hepatocellular carcinoma following locoregional therapy: a pictorial review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide and within the United States. Liver transplant or partial liver resection is the definitive treatment of choice for HCC; however, the majority of cases are detected in advanced stages due to its early-stage asymptomatic nature, often precluding surgical treatment. Locoregional therapy plays an essential role in HCC management, including curative intent, as a bridge to transplant, or in some cases palliative therapy. Radiologists play a critical role in assessing tumor response following treatment to guide further management that may potentially impact transplantation eligibility; therefore, it is important for radiologists to have an understanding of different locoregional therapies and the variations of imaging response to different therapies. In this review article, we outline the imaging response to ablative therapy (AT), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We will also briefly discuss the basic concepts of these locoregional therapies. This review focuses on the imaging features following locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma following AT, TACE, SIRT, and SBRT.

Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results have remained inconsistent. Hence, a meta-analysis and a systematic review of these treatment modalities are necessary to evaluate their efficacy and safety for HCC treatment.

Methods

From the inception of this meta-analysis and review until August 31, 2019, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for RCTs involving LH and RFA treatments of patients with HCC. The studies were screened and the data from these articles were extracted independently by two authors. Summary odd ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome with a fixed- or random-effect model. The outcomes for effectiveness evaluations included duration of surgery, estimated bleeding volume, incidence of blood transfusion during surgery, duration of hospital stay, and the outcome for safety included the incidence of cancer recurrence.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total of 615 patients were identified, 312 and 303 of which underwent RFA and LH treatments, respectively. The duration of surgery (MD = −99.04; 95% CI: −131.26–−66.82), estimated bleeding volume (MD = −241.97; 95% CI: −386.93–−97.02), incidence of blood transfusion during surgery (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02–0.37), and duration of hospital stay (MD = −3.4; 95% CI: −5.22–−1.57) in RFA treatment were significantly lower than those of LH treatment. However, the incidence of cancer recurrence was significantly higher for RFA treatment compared with LH treatment (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.72–4.18).

Conclusions

LH treatment is preferred over RFA treatment with a better radical effect, but RFA treatment is more beneficial with smaller trauma, development of less complications, and shorter operating time when compared with HCC treatment.