Comparison of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and CyberKnife® for initial solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A pilot study

Ablative and non-surgical therapies for early and very early hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

A wide range of ablative and non-surgical therapies are available for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with very early or early-stage disease and preserved liver function.

Objective

To review and compare the effectiveness of all current ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 3 cm).

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Nine databases (March 2021), two trial registries (April 2021) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.

Review methods

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of ablative and non-surgical therapies, versus any comparator, for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Randomised controlled trials were quality assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and mapped. The comparative effectiveness of therapies was assessed using network meta-analysis. A threshold analysis was used to identify which comparisons were sensitive to potential changes in the evidence. Where comparisons based on randomised controlled trial evidence were not robust or no randomised controlled trials were identified, a targeted systematic review of non-randomised, prospective comparative studies provided additional data for repeat network meta-analysis and threshold analysis. The feasibility of undertaking economic modelling was explored. A workshop with patients and clinicians was held to discuss the findings and identify key priorities for future research.

Results

Thirty-seven randomised controlled trials (with over 3700 relevant patients) were included in the review. The majority were conducted in China or Japan and most had a high risk of bias or some risk of bias concerns. The results of the network meta-analysis were uncertain for most comparisons. There was evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection is inferior to radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% credible interval 1.16 to 1.82), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% credible interval 1.11 to 1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk 1.19, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 1.39) and local recurrence (relative risk 1.80, 95% credible interval 1.19 to 2.71). Percutaneous acid injection was also inferior to radiofrequency ablation for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% credible interval 1.05 to 2.51). Threshold analysis showed that further evidence could plausibly change the result for some comparisons. Fourteen eligible non-randomised studies were identified (n ≥ 2316); twelve had a high risk of bias so were not included in updated network meta-analyses. Additional non-randomised data, made available by a clinical advisor, were also included (n = 303). There remained a high level of uncertainty in treatment rankings after the network meta-analyses were updated. However, the updated analyses suggested that microwave ablation and resection are superior to percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection for some outcomes. Further research on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was recommended at the workshop, although it is only appropriate for certain patient subgroups, limiting opportunities for adequately powered trials.

Limitations

Many studies were small and of poor quality. No comparative studies were found for some therapies.

Conclusions

The existing evidence base has limitations; the uptake of specific ablative therapies in the United Kingdom appears to be based more on technological advancements and ease of use than strong evidence of clinical effectiveness. However, there is evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection are inferior to radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and resection.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42020221357.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131224) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

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.

Surgery or external beam radiation for solitary small hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

There is little evidence on the efficacy of external beam radiation (EBR) compared to liver resection (LR) for patients with solitary small (≤5 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Objective

We aimed to investigate this clinical question based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Method

SEER database was used to identify 416 patients with solitary small HCC who underwent LR or EBR. Survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards model were performed to evaluate overall survival (OS) and identify prognostic factors for OS. Propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the baseline characteristics of the two groups.

Result

Before PSM, the 1- and 2-year OS rates were 92.0% and 85.2% in the LR cohort and 76.0% and 60.3% in the EBR cohort, respectively (P < 0.001). After PSM, LR (n = 62) demonstrated improved OS compared to EBR (n = 62) (1-year OS rate: 96.5% vs. 76.0%; 2-year OS rate: 89.3% vs. 60.3%, P < 0.001), despite stratification on tumor size. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that treatment type was the only factor associated with OS (hazard ratio: 5.297; 95% confidence interval: 1.952-14.371, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

For patients with solitary small HCC, LR may offer better survival outcomes than EBR.

Clinical consensus statement: Establishing the roles of locoregional and systemic therapies for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and approximately one-third of patients present with intermediate-stage disease. The treatment landscape of intermediate-stage HCC is rapidly evolving due to developments in local, locoregional and systemic therapies. Treatment recommendations focused on this heterogenous disease stage and that take into account the Canadian reality are lacking. To address this gap, a pan-Canadian group of experts in hepatology, transplant, surgery, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and medical oncology came together to develop consensus recommendations on management of intermediate-stage HCC relevant to the Canadian context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi framework was used to develop consensus statements with strengths of recommendation and supporting levels of evidence graded using the AHA/ACC classification system. Tentative consensus statements were drafted based on a systematic search and expert input in a series of iterative feedback cycles and were then circulated via online survey to assess the level of agreement.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The pre-defined ratification threshold of 80 % agreement was reached for all statements in the areas of multidisciplinary treatment (n = 4), intra-arterial therapy (n = 14), biologics (n = 5), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical resection and transplantation (n = 7), and percutaneous ablative therapy (n = 4). These generally reflected an expansion in treatment options due to developments in previously established or emergent techniques, introduction of new and more active therapies and increased therapeutic flexibility. These developments have allowed for greater treatment tailoring and personalization as well as a paradigm shift toward strategies with curative intent in a wider range of disease settings.

Radiofrequency ablation versus stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-regression

Aim: The aim of this meta-regression was to assess the impact of mean/median age, mean/median tumor size, percentage of males in total sample, and total sample size on the comparative effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Methods: Ten studies reporting on the composite outcome of overall survival and local control were included. Results: A significant relationship was found between age and overall survival at 1 and 2 for both RFA and SBRT. A significant relationship was noted also between age and local control at 1 and 2 years for RFA. Conclusion: Patients treated with SBRT had a wider range of tumor sizes and larger tumor sizes; no relationship was observed between tumor size and overall survival or local control by SBRT.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma: an up-date meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are available locoregional curative treatments for nonsurgical Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of SBRT versus RFA for HCC.

METHODS

A computerized bibliographic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science to identify comparative studies. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcomes were freedom from local progression (FFLP) and treatment-related complications.

RESULTS

In total, there were 17 trials involving 22,180 patients. Patients receiving RFA showed significantly better 1-, 2- year OS (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.96, P = 0.141,OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, P = 0.082), whereas SBRT resulted in significantly better 1-, 2-, 3- year FFLP (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.44-3.34, P = 0.303; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.12-2.19, P = 0.268; OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.70-2.90, P = 0.470). There were no significant differences for 3-, 5- year OS in both groups (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.38, P = 0.001; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68-1.34, P = 0.016). The overall treatment-related complication rate did not differ significantly between the two treatment arms, while SBRT was significantly associated with Child-Pugh worsening.

CONCLUSIONS

Though SBRT has excellent FFLP, RFA yields superior short-term survival for HCC. But the discrepancy between FFLP and OS requires further investigation.

Proton Beam Therapy and Photon-Based Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiation Therapy: The Next Frontiers of Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has increasingly been utilized in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to technological advances with positive clinical outcomes. Innovations in EBRT include improved image guidance, motion management, treatment planning, and highly conformal techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Moreover, proton beam therapy (PBT) and magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) have expanded the capabilities of EBRT. PBT offers the advantage of minimizing low- and moderate-dose radiation to the surrounding normal tissue, thereby preserving uninvolved liver and allowing for dose escalation. MRgRT provides the advantage of improved soft tissue delineation compared to computerized tomography (CT) guidance. Additionally, MRgRT with online adaptive therapy is particularly useful for addressing motion not otherwise managed and reducing high-dose radiation to the normal tissue such as the stomach and bowel. PBT and online adaptive MRgRT are emerging technological advancements in EBRT that may provide a significant clinical benefit for patients with HCC.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation as initial treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be an alternative treatment for patients with small (≤3 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) who were not indicated for resection or local ablation therapy. This study compared the therapeutic effects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and SBRT in patients with small (≤3 cm) HCCs.

METHODS

Data of HCC patients who underwent SBRT or RFA as an initial treatment at four tertiary referral hospitals between March 2011 and February 2017 were reviewed. The patient inclusion criteria were a single nodule measuring ≤3 cm in size and not suitable for resection.

RESULTS

SBRT and RFA were performed for 72 (SBRT group) and 134 (RFA group) patients, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 97.0%, 80.3%, and 80.3%, respectively, in the SBRT group compared with 98.5%, 83.9%, and 80.8%, respectively, in the RFA group, with no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.81). The estimated five-year local control (LC) rate was 68.1% in the SBRT group and 73.1% in the RFA group (P = 0.81). In the SBRT group analysis, both SBRT alone (n = 34) and SBRT combined with transarterial chemoembolization (n = 38) showed no difference with RFA in OS (P = 0.72 and P = 0.90) or LC rate (P = 0.95 and P = 0.68), respectively.

CONCLUSION

SBRT is an effective and safe treatment method for small HCCs, with survival and tumor recurrence rates similar to those of RFA.

Comparison of radiofrequency ablation and ablative external radiotherapy for the treatment of intrahepatic malignancies: A hybrid meta-analysis

Background & Aims

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ablative external beam radiotherapy (ablative RT) are commonly used to treat small intrahepatic malignancies. We meta-analysed oncologic outcomes and systematically reviewed the clinical consideration of tumour location and size.

Methods

PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched on February 24, 2022. Studies comparing RFA and ablative RT, providing one of the endpoints (local control or survival), and encompassing ≥5 patients in each arm were included.

Results

Twenty-one studies involving 4,638 patients were included. Regarding survival, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.204 (p = 0.194, favouring RFA, not statistically significant) among all studies, 1.253 (p = 0.153) among hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies, and 1.002 (p = 0.996) among colorectal cancer metastasis studies. Regarding local control, the OR was 0.458 (p <0.001, favouring ablative RT) among all studies, 0.452 (p <0.001) among HCC studies, favouring the ablative RT arm, and 0.649 (p = 0.484) among colorectal cancer metastasis studies. Pooled 1- and 2-year survival rates for HCC studies were 91.8% and 77.7% after RFA, and 89.0% and 76.0% after ablative RT, respectively; and for metastasis studies were 88.2% and 66.4% after RFA and 82.7% and 60.6% after RT, respectively. Literature analysis suggests that ablative RT can be more effective than RFA for tumours larger than 2-3 cm or for specific sublocations in the liver (e.g. subphrenic or perivascular sites), with moderate quality of evidence (reference to the grading system of the American Society for Radiation Oncology Primary Liver Cancer Clinical Guidelines). The pooled grade ≥3 complication rates were 2.9% and 2.8% in the RFA and ablative RT arms, respectively (p = 0.952).

Conclusions

Our study shows that ablative RT can yield oncologic outcomes similar to RFA, and suggests that it can be more effective for the treatment of tumours in locations where RFA is difficult to perform or for large-sized tumours.

Systematic Review Registration

This study was registered with PROSPERO (Protocol No: CRD42022332997).

Impact and implications

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ablative radiotherapy (RT) are non-surgical modalities for the treatment of small intrahepatic malignancies. Ablative RT showed oncologic outcomes at least similar to those of RFA, and was more effective at specific locations (e.g. perivascular or subphrenic locations).

Is the CyberKnife radiosurgery system effective and safe for patients? An umbrella review of the evidence

Background: The CyberKnife system combines real-time image guidance and a dynamic tracking system to implement frameless radiotherapy. This umbrella review is aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CyberKnife. Methods: A comprehensive search of health technology assessments and systematic reviews was performed among the Embase, PubMed and other grey databases until July 2020. Treatment outcomes were extracted, and the quality of included studies were assessed using AMSTAR-2. Results: Nineteen studies were eligible. CyberKnife not only had a wide range of applications, long overall survival and great local control, but also had a limited toxicity and good cost-effectiveness compared with other radiotherapy equipment. Conclusion: Despite the relatively low quality of the evidence, our findings can still provide a decision reference for policymakers.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of local control, survival and toxicity outcomes

There is a growing body of literature supporting the use of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in the management of primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This systematic review and meta-analysis of the current published evidence for SABR for HCC assessed the impact of treatment dose, fractionation and tumour size on the outcomes of local control (LC), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. A systematic search was independently performed by two authors for articles published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2005 and December 2019. A DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to assess pooled results. A multivariate meta-regression analysis incorporated the effect of explanatory variables (radiation dose in EQD2_[10], fractionation and tumour size) on outcomes of OS, LC and toxicity. Forty-nine cohorts involving 2846 HCC patients with 3088 lesions treated with SABR were included. Pooled 1-, 2- and 3-year LC rates were 91.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.3-93.2), 86.7% (95% CI 82.7-89.8) and 84.2% (95% CI 77.9-88.9) respectively. Pooled 1-, 2- and 3-year OS rates were 78.4% (95% CI 73.4-82.6), 61.3% (55.2-66.9) and 48.3% (95% CI 39.0-57). Population-weighted median grade 3 toxicity rates were 6.5% (IQR 3.2-16) and mean grade 4/5 rates were 1.4% (IQR 0-2.1). Within EQD2_[10] ranges of 40 to 83.33 Gy corresponding to common dose-fractionation regimens of 30-50 Gy in 5 fractions, there was a multivariate association between superior LC and OS with increasing EQD2_[10] , with a proportionately smaller increase in grade 3 toxicity and no association with grade 4/5 toxicity. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy is a viable treatment option for HCC with high LC rates and low rates of reported grade 3/4 toxicity. Increasing EQD2_[10] was associated with improvements in LC and OS with a comparatively smaller increase in toxicity. Prospective randomised trials are warranted to define optimal patient selection and dose-fractionation regimens.

Radiofrequency ablation versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

The present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. A systematic literature search was conducted of online databases prior to February 21, 2021. Eleven articles involving 8429 patients were included. The pooled hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) of RFA versus SBRT was 0.79 (p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were found in the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year pooled OS and freedom from local progression (FFLP) rates between the two groups, favoring the RFA arms. However, the pooled local control (LC) rates were higher in the SBRT arm. RFA provided better OS and FFLP for treating HCC, while SBRT achieved superior LC. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207877.

Therapeutic outcome and related predictors of stereotactic body radiotherapy for small liver-confined HCC: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Background and purpose

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a promising ablative modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) especially for those with small-sized or early-stage tumors. This study aimed to synthesize available data to evaluate efficacy and explore related predictors of SBRT for small liver-confined HCC (≤ 3 lesions with longest diameter ≤ 6 cm).

Materials and methods

A systematic search were performed of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) of small HCC treated with SBRT, meanwhile, to evaluate clinical parameters associated with treatment outcome by two methods including subgroup comparisons and pooled HR meta-analysis. The secondary endpoint was treatment toxicity.

Results

After a comprehensive database review, 14 observational studies with 1238 HCC patients received SBRT were included. Pooled 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 93.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.0–96.0%) and 72.0% (95% CI 62.0–79.0%), respectively. Pooled 1-year and 3-year LC rates were 96.0% (95% CI 91.0–98.0%) and 91.0% (95% CI 85.0–95.0%), respectively. Subgroup comparisons regarding Child–Pugh class (stratified by CP-A percentage 100%, 75–100%, 50–75%) showed there were statistically significant differences for both 1-year and 3-year OS rate (p < 0.01), while that regarding number of lesions, pretreatment situation, age (median/mean age of 65), macrovascular invasion, tumor size, and radiation dose (median BED₁₀ of 100 Gy), there were no differences. In subgroup comparisons for LC rate, it showed number of lesions (1 lesion vs. 2–3 lesions) was significantly associated with 1-year LC rate (p = 0.04), though not associated with 3-year LC rate (p = 0.72). In subgroup comparisons categorized by other factors including pretreatment situation, age, CP-A percentage, macrovascular invasion, tumor size, and radiation dose, there were no significant differences for 1- or 3-year LC rate. To further explore the association between CP class and OS, the second method was applied by combining HR and 95% CIs. Results indicated CP-A was predictive of better OS (p = 0.001) with pooled HR 0.31 (95% CIs 0.11–0.88), which was consistent with subgroup comparison results. Concerning adverse effect of SBRT, pooled rates of grade ≥ 3 hepatic complications and RILD were 4.0% (95% CI 2.0–8.0%) and 14.7% (95% CI 7.4–24.7%), respectively.

Conclusion

The study showed that SBRT was a potent local treatment for small liver-confined HCC conferring excellent OS and LC persisting up to 3 years, even though parts of included patients were pretreated or with macrovascular invasion. CP-A class was a significant predictor of optimal OS, while number of lesions might affect short term tumor control (1-year LC). Tumor size and radiation dose were not vital factors impacting treatment outcome for such small-sized HCC patients. Because of the low quality of observational studies and heterogeneous groups of patients treated with SBRT, further clinical trials should be prospectively investigated in large sample sizes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-021-01761-1.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Background: There are limited and discording results on the comparison between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety.Research design and methods: A bibliographic search was performed on main databases through September 2020. Primary outcome was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and adverse event rates were the secondary outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI)Results: Nine studies enrolling 6545 patients were included. Recurrence-free survival at 1-year was similar between the two treatments (OR 2.11, 0.67-6.63); recurrence-free survival at 2- and 3-year was significantly in favor of SBRT as compared to RFA (OR 2.06, 1.48-2.88 and 1.86, 1.07-3.26, respectively). In a meta-analysis of plotted HRs, SBRT significantly outperformed RFA (HR 0.50, 0.33-0.76, p = 0.001). Overall survival was similar between the two treatments (HR 1.03, 0.72-1.47). No significant difference in terms of severe adverse event rate was observed (OR 1.38, 0.28-6.71).Conclusions: SBRT prolongs recurrence-free survival as compared to RFA in HCC patients, although no significant survival benefit was demonstrated.

Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Radiosensitization Strategies and Radiation-Immunotherapy Combination

Simple Summary

Radiotherapy is rapidly turning into a crucial component of multidisciplinary treatment for liver cancer because many patients are not surgical treatment candidates. Thanks to technical developments, radiotherapy have achieved high precision treatments, making it possible to eliminate tumor cells without severe damage to the liver and other organs. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy is an advanced radiotherapy technique able to eradicate malignant tumors wherever they are located in properly selected patients. The best use of radiotherapy, the most fruitful radiotherapy strategy, and the best way to combine it with other treatments for liver cancer are largely unknown. Radiosensitizers, agents that can potentiate radiotherapy, could broaden the radiotherapeutic landscape. Radiotherapy potentiation can be achieved with diverse treatments, not only drugs but also nanoparticles. In order to clear up the performance of radiotherapy in liver cancer management in the future and the best ways to potentiate its effects, considerable medical research is needed.

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging ablative modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Most patients with HCC have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis, and therefore, are not candidates for definitive-intent therapies such as resection or transplantation. For this reason, various alternative local and regional therapies have been used to prevent disease progression, palliate symptoms, and delay liver failure. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is a non-invasive technique of delivering ablative doses of radiation to tumors while sparing normal or non-tumor hepatic tissue. Incorporation of SBRT in multidisciplinary HCC management is gradual, initially applied when other liver-directed therapies have failed or are contraindicated, and tried in combination with other locoregional or systemic therapies for more unfavorable conditions by more experienced teams. In order to improve SBRT therapeutic ratio, there has been much interest in augmenting the effect of radiation on tumors by combining it with chemotherapy, molecularly targeted therapeutics, nanoparticles, and immunotherapy. This review aims to synthesize available evidence to evaluate the clinical feasibility and efficacy of SBRT for HCC, and to explore novel radio-potentiation concepts by combining SBRT with novel therapeutics. It is expected that those approaches would result in improved therapeutic outcomes, even though many questions remain with regard to the optimal way to assemble treatments. Further trials are needed to evaluate and consolidate these promising therapies for HCC.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs. Radiofrequency Ablation in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Both stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are effective local treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but whether RFA is superior to SBRT is still controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the treatment outcomes of SBRT with RFA as curable or bridge intention. Methods: We searched online databases for studies that compared treatment outcomes for SBRT and RFA. Eligibility criteria included evaluation of local control, overall survival (OS), transplant rate, and post-transplant pathological necrosis. Results: As no randomized clinical trials met the criteria, 10 retrospective studies with a total of 2,732 patients were included. Two studies were in favor of SBRT in local control, two studies preferred RFA in OS, and others reported comparable outcomes for both. SBRT demonstrated significantly higher 1- and 3-year local control than RFA [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.74, P = 0.003; and OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.80, P = 0.002, respectively]. However, SBRT reported significantly shorter 1- and 2-year OS (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.90, P = 0.0003; and OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.38-2.01, P < 0.00001, respectively). As bridge treatment, no significant difference was shown in transplant rate and post-transplant pathological necrosis rate (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32-1.03, P = 0.060; and OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.13-1.82, P = 0.290, respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates SBRT is able to complete a better local control for HCC than RFA, though the OS is inferior to RFA because of tumor burden or liver profiles of the enrolled studies. Well-designed, randomized, multicenter trials will be required to further investigate the conclusion.

Clinical Significance of Adverse Events for Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Lenvatinib: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

We sought to investigate the clinical profile(s) associated with the discontinuation of lenvatinib (LEN) due to severe adverse events (DLSAE) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This retrospective study enrolled 177 patients with HCC treated with LEN. Independent factors associated with DLSAE were advanced age, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, fatigue grade ≥ 3, and appetite loss ≥ 2. The overall survival (OS) in the group that did not require DLSAE was significantly longer compared to the group that did require DLSAE (median survival time (MST): not reached vs. 12.8 months, p < 0.001). Moreover, advanced age was the most important variable for DLSAE in a decision tree analysis. Hypertension and hand-foot-skin-reaction (HFSR) were also significantly associated with longer survival, and the occurrence of hypertension was the earliest predictor for improved prognosis, while appetite loss and development of grade ≥ 3 fatigue were predictive of a poor prognosis. We concluded that the appearance of hypertension has potential as an early surrogate marker to predict improved prognosis. Moreover, careful management to avoid discontinuation of treatment leads to longer survival in patients receiving LEN.

Comparisons between radiofrequency ablation and stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver malignancies: Meta-analyses and a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a standard ablative modality for small liver malignancies. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has emerged although yet suffers a lack of high-level evidence. We performed meta-analyses and a systematic review to integrate the literature and help in clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Systemic searches were performed of the PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases to identify controlled studies comparing RFA and SBRT.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 2238 patients were included. Among them, eight studies were for treating early hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and three for liver metastases. Including HCCs and liver metastases studies, the pooled two-year local control (LC) rate was higher in the SBRT arm (83.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.6-88.4) than that in the RFA arm (71.8%, 95% CI: 61.5-80.2) (p = 0.024). Among studies on liver metastases, the pooled two-year LC rate was higher in the SBRT arm (83.6% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between arms in HCC studies (SBRT vs. RFA: 84.5 vs. 79.5% p = 0.431). Pooled analysis of overall survival (OS) in HCC studies showed an odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.05-1.95, p = 0.023), favoring RFA. Among the two liver metastases studies with comparative survival data, no significant difference was observed.

CONCLUSION

LC was equivalent between RFA and SBRT for HCC and better for SBRT for the treatment of liver metastases. RFA was associated with better OS for HCC, but discrepancy between LC and OS requires further investigation, as they are local modalities having comparable efficacy.

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.

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

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an advanced form of radiotherapy (RT) with a growing interest on its application in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It can deliver ablative radiation doses to tumors in a few fractions without excessive doses to normal tissues, with the help of advanced modern RT and imaging technologies. Currently, SBRT is recommended as an alternative to curative treatments, such as surgery and radiofrequency ablation. This review discusses the current status of SBRT to aid in the decision making on how it is incorporated into the HCC management.

[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.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of the South Australian experience

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment option for liver tumours unsuitable for established curative treatment such as ablation or surgery. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in South Australia.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2018, 13 HCC patients were treated with SBRT. Eligibility criteria for SBRT included: unsuitable for standard curative therapies (resection or percutaneous ablation), lack of complete response to prior transarterial chemoembolization, Child-Pugh classification ≤B7, tumours ≤5 cm and minimum of up to 6 months follow-up post-SBRT. The prescribed radiation dose was determined by liver function with doses ranging from 40 to 45 Gy in three or five fractions. Records for all patients were reviewed, and treatment response was scored according to the modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumours. Toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 22.7 months, and the median tumour size was 40 mm. The 1 year local control was 92.3%, recurrence-free survival was 67.7% and overall survival was 86.4% at end of study. Three patients underwent liver transplant. No grade ≥3 non-haematological toxicities were observed. One patient experienced acute grade ≥3 haematological toxicity.

CONCLUSION

SBRT is a safe, effective and non-invasive alternative treatment option for patients with small HCCs, unsuitable for standard, evidence-based therapies and lacking complete response to transarterial chemoembolization. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate the role of SBRT in HCC.

Comparing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) versus re-trans-catheter arterial chemoembolization (re-TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma patients who had incomplete response after initial TACE (TASABR): a randomized controlled trial

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for 75–85% of primary liver cancers and is prevalent in the Asia-Pacific region. Till now, trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is still one of common modalities in managing unresectable intermediate-stage HCC. However, post-TACE residual viable HCC is not uncommon, resulting in unsatisfied overall survival after TACE alone. Recently, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been suggested to manage HCC curatively. However, evidence from phase-III trials is largely lacking.

Hence, the present phase III randomized trial is designed to compare clinical outcomes between SABR and re-TACE for unresectable HCC patients who had incomplete response after initial TACE.

Methods

The present study is an open-label, parallel, randomized controlled trial. A total of 120 patients will be included into two study groups, i.e., SABR and re-TACE, with a 1:1 allocation rate. A 3-year allocating period is planned. Patients with incomplete response after initial TACE will be enrolled and randomized. The primary endpoint is 1-year freedom-form-local-progression rate. Secondary endpoints are disease-progression-free survival, overall survival, local control, response rate, toxicity, and duration of response of the treated tumor.

Discussion

SABR has been reported as an effective modality in managing intermediate-stage HCC patients, but evidence from phase-III randomized trials is largely lacking. As a result, conducting randomized trials to demarcate the role of SABR in these patients is warranted, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, where HBV- and HCV-related HCCs are prevalent.

Trial registration

Before enrolling participants, the present study was registered prospectively on ClinicalTrials.gov (trial identifier, NCT02921139) on Sep. 29, 2016. This study is ongoing.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Trends and Controversies

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Depending on the extent of disease and competing comorbidities for mortality, multiple liver-directed therapy options exist for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Advancements in radiation oncology have led to the emergence of stereotactic body radiation therapy as a promising liver-directed therapy, which delivers high doses of radiation with a steep dose gradient to maximize local tumor control and minimize radiation-induced treatment toxicity. In this study, we review the current clinical data as well as the unresolved issues and controversies regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: (1) Is there a radiation dose–response relationship with hepatocellular carcinoma? (2) What are the optimal dosimetric predictors of radiation-induced liver disease, and do they differ for patients with varying liver function? (3) How do we assess treatment response on imaging? (4) How does stereotactic body radiation therapy compare to other liver-directed therapy modalities, including proton beam therapy? Based on the current literature discussed, this review highlights future possible research and clinical directions.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy in primary hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future directions

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a form of radiation therapy that has been used in the treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) over the past decade. To evaluate the clinical efficacy of SBRT in primary HCC, a literature search was conducted to identify original research articles published from January 2000 through January 2018 in PubMed on SBRT in HCC. All relevant studies published from 2004 to 2018 were included. Prospective studies demonstrated 2-year local control (LC) rates ranging from 64-95% and overall survival (OS) rates ranging from 34% (2-year) to 65% (3-year). Retrospective studies demonstrated 2-year LC rates of 44-90% and 2-year OS rates of 24-67%. Reported toxicities in primary HCC patients vary but SBRT appears to be relatively well tolerated. Studies comparing SBRT to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are few, but they suggest SBRT may be more effective than RFA in specific primary HCC populations. Additionally, SBRT appears to increase the efficacy of both transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and sorafenib in selected primary HCC populations.

Clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2015, 117 patients with HCC (≤3 nodules, ≤30 mm in diameter, Child-Pugh score ≤7, and no vascular or extracellular metastasis) were treated with SBRT at our hospital. We evaluated overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local control, and adverse events. Patients were stratified according to age 75 years and older (elderly group, n = 54) and age younger than 75 years (young group, n = 63).

RESULTS

The median OS in the elderly group was not significantly different from that in the young group (52 months vs. not reached, P = 0.27). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 96.2%, 77.6%, and 63.9%, respectively, in the elderly group, and 96.8%, 84.8%, and 67.7%, respectively, in the young group. The median DFS in the elderly group was significantly shorter than that in the young group (13 vs. 25 months, respectively; P = 0.03). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year DFS rates were 50.6%, 30.4%, and 26.6%, respectively, in the elderly group and 66.5%, 50.7%, and 45.3%, respectively, in the young group. The 3-year local tumor control rate in the elderly group was 98.1%, and that in the young group was 98.4% (P = 0.83). There was no difference between groups in the incidence of any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotactic body radiotherapy can be effective and safe for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

Management of people with early- or very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer) is classified in many ways. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) group staging classifies the cancer based on patient's life expectancy. People with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma have single tumour or three tumours of maximum diameter of 3 cm or less, Child-Pugh status A to B, and performance status 0 (fully functional). Management of hepatocellular carcinoma is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus sham or no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on hepatocellular carcinoma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, portal hypertension, aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, size and number of the tumours, and future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials including participants who were previously liver transplanted. We considered interventions compared with each other, sham, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio, mean difference, rate ratio, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery versus radiofrequency ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery. Fourteen trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery. Overall, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes for both comparisons. Surgery versus radiofrequency ablationThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. The trials did not report the participants' portal hypertension status or whether they received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 29 months to 42 months (3 trials).There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for surgery versus radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.08; 574 participants; 4 trials; I² = 68). Cancer-related mortality was lower in the surgery group (20/115 (17.4%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (43/115 (37.4%)) (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65; 230 participants; 1 trial). Serious adverse events (number of participants) was higher in the surgery group (14/60 (23.3%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (1/60 (1.7%)) (odds ratio 17.96, 95% CI 2.28 to 141.60; 120 participants; 1 trial). The number of serious adverse events was higher in the surgery group (adjusted rate 11.3 events per 100 participants) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (3/186 (1.6 events per 100 participants)) (rate ratio 7.02, 95% CI 2.29 to 21.46; 391 participants; 2 trials; I² = 0%). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. One trial was funded by a party with vested interests; three trials were funded by parties without any vested. Non-surgical interventionsThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. Most trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants, and none of the trials reported whether the participants received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 6 months to 37 months (11 trials). Trial participants, who were not eligible for surgery, were treated with radiofrequency ablation, laser ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous acetic acid injection, percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with systemic chemotherapy, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with percutaneous alcohol injection, or a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with radiofrequency ablation.The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous acetic acid injection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.79; 125 participants; 1 trial) and percutaneous alcohol injection (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88; 882 participants; 5 trials; I² = 57%) groups compared with the radiofrequency ablation group. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for any of the other comparisons. The proportion of people with cancer-related mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous alcohol injection group (adjusted proportion 16.8%) compared with the radiofrequency ablation group (20/232 (8.6%)) (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.89; 458 participants; 3 trials; I² = 0%). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the comparisons that reported serious adverse events (number of participants or number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Five trials were funded by parties without any vested interest; the source of funding was not available in the remaining trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of low or very low quality. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up between surgery and radiofrequency ablation in people eligible for surgery. All-cause mortality at maximal follow-up was higher with percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous alcohol injection than with radiofrequency ablation in people not eligible for surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for the other comparisons. High-quality RCTs designed to assess clinically important differences in all-cause mortality and health-related quality of life, and having an adequate follow-up period (approximately five years) are needed.

Advances in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) is an emerging effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) associated with acceptable rates of toxicity in appropriately selected patients. Despite often being reserved for patients unsuitable for other local treatments, prospective and retrospective studies have demonstrated excellent long-term control. SBRT may be used as a stand-alone treatment, or as an adjunct to other HCC therapies. Based on available data, SBRT appears to complement existing local liver therapies. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies are required to better determine the optimal role of SBRT in HCC treatment.

Radiotherapy as valid modality for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis

Although the current standard treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is sorafenib, many previous studies have established the need for a reliable local modality for PVTT control, which is a major cause of liver function deterioration and metastasis. Additionally, there is growing evidence for the prognostic significance of PVTT classification according to the location of tumor thrombosis. Favorable outcomes can be obtained by applying local modalities, including surgery or transarterial chemoembolization, especially in second-order or distal branch PVTT. Rapid control of PVTT could maintain or improve liver function and reduce intrahepatic as well as distant metastasis. Radiotherapy (RT) is one of the main locoregional treatment modalities in oncologic fields, but has rarely been used in HCC because of concerns regarding hepatic toxicity. However, with the development of advanced techniques, RT has been increasingly applied in HCC management. Randomized studies have yet to definitively prove the benefit of RT, but several comparative studies have justified the application of RT in HCC. The value of RT is especially noticeable in HCC with PVTT; several prospective and retrospective studies have reported favorable outcomes, including a 40% to 60% objective response rate and median overall survival of 15 mo to 20 mo in responders. In this review, we evaluate the role of RT as an alternative local modality in HCC with PVTT.