Celiac plexus radiosurgery for pain management in advanced cancer: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Refractory upper abdominal pain or lower back pain (retroperitoneal pain syndrome) related to celiac plexus involvement characterises pancreatic and other upper gastrointestinal malignancies and is an unmet need. We hypothesised that ablative radiation delivered to the celiac plexus would decrease pain. METHODS: This multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study was done at eight hospitals in five countries (Israel, Poland, Canada, the USA, and Portugal). Eligible patients aged 18 years or older with an average pain level of 5-10 on the Brief Pain Inventory short form (BPI-SF), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and either pancreatic cancer or other tumours involving the celiac axis, received a single fraction of 25 Gy of external-beam photons to the celiac plexus. The primary endpoint was complete or partial pain response based on a reduction of the BPI-SF average pain score of 2 points or more from baseline to 3 weeks after treatment. All evaluable patients with stable pain scores were included in response assessment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03323489, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2018, and Dec 28, 2021, 125 patients were treated, 90 of whom were evaluable. Patients were followed up until death. Median age was 65·5 years (IQR 58·3-71·8), 50 (56%) were female and 40 (44%) were male, 83 (92%) had pancreatic cancer, and 77 (86%) had metastatic disease. Median baseline BPI-SF average pain score was 6 (IQR 5-7). Of the 90 evaluable patients at 3 weeks, 48 (53%; 95% CI 42-64) had at least a partial pain response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events, irrespective of attribution, were abdominal pain (35 [28%] of 125) and fatigue (23 [18%]). 11 serious adverse events of grade 3 or worse were recorded. Two grade 3 serious adverse events were probably attributed to treatment by the local investigators (abdominal pain [n=1] and nausea [n=1]), and nine were possibly attributed to treatment (seven were grade 3: blood bilirubin increased [n=1], duodenal haemorrhage [n=2], abdominal pain [n=2], and progressive disease [n=2]; and two were grade 5: gastrointestinal bleed from suspected varices 24 days after treatment [n=1] and progressive disease [advanced pancreatic cancer] 89 days after treatment [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Celiac plexus radiosurgery could potentially be a non-invasive palliative option for patients with retroperitoneal pain syndrome. Further investigation by means of a randomised comparison with conventional celiac block or neurolysis is warranted. FUNDING: Gateway for Cancer Research and the Israel Cancer Association.

Palliative radiotherapy versus best supportive care in patients with painful hepatic cancer (CCTG HE1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative treatment options for painful hepatic cancer can be restricted due to patients eventually becoming refractory to standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiotherapy improves hepatic pain from cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (CCTG HE1) done in nine cancer centres across Canada, we included patients aged 18 years or older with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases, who were refractory to standard treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, with life expectancy of more than 3 months, and pain or discomfort at its worst in the past 24 hours on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) of at least 4 out of 10, which was stable for up to 7 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a minimisation method after stratification by centre and type of cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma vs liver metastases), to single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) to the liver with 8 mg ondansetron (or equivalent) orally and 4 mg dexamethasone orally given 1-2 h before radiotherapy plus best supportive care (including non-opioid or opioid analgesia, or dexamethasone, or a combination of these) or best supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was improvement in patient-reported liver cancer pain or discomfort of at least 2 points on worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month after randomisation. All patients with both baseline and 1-month assessments were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511522, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 25, 2015, and June 2, 2022, 66 patients were screened and randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus best supportive care (n=33) or best supportive care (n=33). Median age was 65 years (IQR 57-72), 37 (56%) of 66 patients were male, 29 (44%) were female, 43 (65%) had liver metastases, and 23 (35%) had hepatocellular carcinoma (data on race and ethnicity were not collected). As of data cutoff (Sept 8, 2022), median follow-up was 3·2 months (95% CI 3·0-3·4). 24 (73%) of 33 in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group and 18 (55%) of 33 in the best supportive care only group completed baseline and 1-month assessments. An improvement in hepatic pain of at least 2 points in worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month was seen in 16 (67%) of 24 patients in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group versus four (22%) of 18 patients in the best supportive care group (p=0·0042). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events within 1 month after randomisation were abdominal pain (three [9%] of 33 in the radiotherapy group vs one [3%] of 33 in best supportive care group) and ascites (two [6%] vs one [3%]). No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Single-fraction radiotherapy plus best supportive care improved pain compared with best supportive care alone in patients with liver cancer, and could be considered a standard palliative treatment. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society.

Impact of Definitive Chemoradiation on Quality-of-Life Changes for Patients With Anal Cancer: Long-term Results of a Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining and improving quality of life (QOL) are important goals of anal cancer management. This disease is generally curable, with many long-term survivors. OBJECTIVE: Long-term QOL after chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer was evaluated. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data from a prospective study of patients with anal cancer who were treated with chemoradiation between 2008 and 2013. PATIENTS: Patients with anal cancer who were treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy were included. INTERVENTIONS: English-speaking patients completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer cancer-specific (C30) and site-specific (CR29) QOL questionnaires at baseline, at end of radiation, at 3 and 6 months, and then annually. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Long-term QOL was evaluated clinically (a change in score of ≥10 points was considered clinically significant) and statistically (using repeated-measurement analysis) by comparing the subscale scores at 1, 2, and 3 years with baseline scores. Subanalysis compared patients who received a radiation dose of 45 to 54 Gy versus 63 Gy. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included (median follow-up of 56.5 months). The symptom and functional scales showed a clinically significant decline at the end of treatment with improvement by 3 months after treatment. There was a long-term statistically significant decline in dyspnea, body image, bowel embarrassment, fecal incontinence, and hair loss, and there was long-term statistically and clinically significant worsening of impotence. Higher radiation dose (63 Gy) was not associated with significantly worse QOL. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included single-institution, single-arm study design, and lack of dose reconstruction (ie, analyses were based on prescribed, rather than delivered, dose). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with anal cancer treated with chemoradiation reported recovery of overall QOL to baseline levels. Specific symptoms remained bothersome, emphasizing the need to address and manage the chemoradiation-induced symptoms, during treatment and in the long term. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B905. IMPACTO DE LA QUIMIORRADIACIN DEFINITIVA EN CAMBIOS EN LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LOS PACIENTES CON CNCER ANAL RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVE: ANTECEDENTES:Mantener y mejorar la calidad de vida son objetivos importantes del tratamiento del cáncer anal, ya que esta enfermedad generalmente es curable, con muchos sobrevivientes a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:Se evaluó la calidad de vida a largo plazo después de la quimiorradiación en pacientes con cáncer anal.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte prospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Utilizamos datos de un estudio prospectivo en pacientes con cáncer anal tratados con quimiorradiación entre 2008-2013.PACIENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer anal fueron tratados con radioterapia de intensidad modulada guiada por imágenes.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes de habla inglesa completaron los cuestionarios de calidad de vida específicos de cáncer (C30) y específicos del sitio (CR29) de la Organización Europea para la Investigación y el Tratamiento del Cáncer al inicio, al final de la radiación, 3 y 6 meses, y luego anualmente.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Se evaluó a largo plazo la calidad de vida clínicamente (un cambio en la puntuación de ≥10 puntos se consideraron clínicamente significativo) y estadísticamente (usando análisis de medición repetida) comparando las subescalas de puntuación al 1, 2, y 3 años. Con puntuaciones de referencia. El subanálisis comparó pacientes que recibieron 45-54 Gy versus 63 Gy.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 96 pacientes (mediana de seguimiento: 56,5 meses). La mayoría de las escalas funcionales y de síntomas mostraron una disminución clínicamente significativa al final del tratamiento con una mejoría a los 3 meses posteriores al tratamiento. Hubo una disminución estadísticamente significativa a largo plazo en disnea, imagen corporal, vergüenza intestinal, incontinencia fecal y pérdida de cabello; y hubo un empeoramiento a largo plazo estadística y clínicamente significativo en impotencia. La dosis de radiación más alta (63 Gy) no se asoció con una calidad de vida significativamente peor.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, diseño de estudio de un solo brazo y falta de recomposición de la dosis (es decir, los análisis se basan en la dosis prescrita, en lugar de la administrada).CONCLUSIÓNES:Los pacientes con cáncer anal tratados con quimiorradiación reportaron una recuperación de la QOL en general a los niveles de base. Síntomas específicos siguieron siendo molestos, lo que enfatiza la necesidad de resolver y tartar los síntomas inducidos por la quimiorradiación no solo durante el tratamiento, sino a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B905. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Anal Adenocarcinoma: A Rare Entity in Need of Multidisciplinary Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare clinical entity for which the optimal management is not defined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the multidisciplinary management and outcomes of patients with anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a quaternary cancer center. PATIENTS: Men and women with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 1995 and 2016 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-two patients were treated with either chemoradiotherapy or trimodality therapy including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local failure, regional failure, and distant metastasis rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the clinical predictors of outcome. RESULTS: There was a higher 5-year rate of local failure in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy compared with trimodality therapy (53% vs 10%; p < 0.01). The 5-year incidence of distant metastases was 29% (trimodality therapy) versus 30% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.9); adjuvant chemotherapy did not reduce the incidence of distant metastases (p = 0.8). Five-year overall survival was 73% (trimodality therapy) versus 49.4% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse overall survival were treatment with chemoradiotherapy, cT3-4 category disease, and node-positive disease. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment may continue to be tailored to individual patients, better outcomes with a trimodality therapy approach were observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708.ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL: UNA ENTIDAD POCO FRECUENTE EN NECESIDAD DE UN MANEJO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO. ANTECEDENTES: El adenocarcinoma anal es una entidad clínica poco frecuente por lo que aún no se define el manejo óptimo. OBJETIVO: Describir el manejo multidisciplinario y los resultados de los pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. DISEO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Centro de cáncer cuaternario. PACIENTES: Hombres y mujeres con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 1995 y 2016. INTERVENCIONES: Cincuenta y dos pacientes fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia o terapia trimodal que incluyó: radioterapia, quimioterapia y resección quirúrgica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Se estimaron las tasas de falla local, falla regional y metástasis a distancia mediante el método de incidencia acumulada. Se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier para estimar la supervivencia libre de progresión y la supervivencia global. Los riesgos proporcionales de multivariable Cox se utilizaron para evaluar los predictores clínicos de los resultados. RESULTADOS: Hubo una mayor tasa de falla local a cinco años en pacientes tratados con quimiorradioterapia en comparación con terapia trimodal (53% vs 10%; p < 0,01). La incidencia a cinco años de metástasis a distancia fue del 29% (terapia trimodal) versus 30% (quimiorradioterapia) (p = 0,9); la quimioterapia adyuvante no redujo la incidencia de metástasis a distancia (p = 0,8). La supervivencia global a cinco años fue del 73% (terapia trimodal) versus 49,4% (quimiorradioterapia); p = 0,1. En el análisis multivariable, los factores asociados con una peor supervivencia general fueron el tratamiento con quimiorradioterapia, enfermedad de categoría cT3-4 y enfermedad con ganglios positivos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por su pequeño tamaño de muestra y su naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el tratamiento puede seguir adaptándose a pacientes individuales, se observaron mejores resultados con un enfoque TTM. Conslute Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Transplant Oncology in Primary and Metastatic Liver Tumors: Principles, Evidence, and Opportunities.

Transplant oncology defines any application of transplant medicine and surgery aimed at improving cancer patients' survival and/or quality of life. In practice, liver transplantation for selected hepato-biliary cancers is the only solid organ transplant with demonstrated efficacy in curing cancer. Four are the proposed future contributions of transplant oncology in hepato-biliary cancer (4-e). (1) evolutionary approach to cancer care that includes liver transplantation; (2) elucidation of self and non-self recognition systems, by linking tumor and transplant immunology; (3) exploration of innovative endpoints both in clinical and experimental settings taking advantage from the access to the entire liver explant; (4) extension of surgical limitation in the multidisciplinary approach to hepato-biliary oncology. The aim of this review is to define the principles of transplant oncology that may be applied to hepato-biliary cancer treatment and research, attempting to balance current evidences with future opportunities.

MRI evaluation of normal tissue deformation and breathing motion under an abdominal compression device.

PURPOSE: Abdominal compression can minimize breathing motion in stereotactic radiotherapy, though it may impact the positioning of dose-limiting normal tissues. This study quantified the reproducibility of abdominal normal tissues and respiratory motion with the use of an abdominal compression device using MR imaging. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers had repeat MR over 3 days under an abdominal compression plate device. Normal tissues were delineated on daily axial T2-weighted MR and compared on days 2 and 3 relative to day 1, after adjusting for baseline shifts relative to bony anatomy. Inter-fraction organ deformation was computed using deformable registration of axial T2 images. Deformation > 5 mm was assumed to be clinically relevant. Inter-fraction respiratory amplitude changes and intra-fraction baseline drifts during imaging were quantified on daily orthogonal cine-MR (70 s each), and changes > 3 mm were assumed to be relevant. RESULTS: On axial MR, the mean inter-fraction normal tissue deformation was > 5 mm for all organs (range 5.1-13.4 mm). Inter-fraction compression device misplacements > 5 mm and changes in stomach volume > 50% occurred at a rate of 93% and 38%, respectively, in one or more directions and were associated with larger adjacent organ deformation, in particular for the duodenum. On cine-MR, inter-fraction amplitude changes > 3 mm on day 2 and 3 relative to day 1 occurred at a rate of < 12.5% (mean superior-inferior change was 1.6 mm). Intra-fraction baseline drifts > 3 mm during any cine-MR acquisition occurred at a rate of 23% (mean superior-inferior changes was 2.4 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory motion under abdominal compression is reproducible in most subjects within 3 mm. However, inter-fraction deformations greater than 5 mm in normal tissues were common and larger than inter- and intra-fraction respiratory changes. Deformations were driven mostly by variable stomach contents and device positioning. The magnitude of this motion may impact normal tissue dosimetry during stereotactic radiotherapy.

Neoadjuvant hyperfractionated chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation may be offered for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). This study aimed to determine the dropout rate and survival of patients who entered a national tri-modality protocol. METHOD: Patients enrolled Jan 2009-Aug 2015 were included. Enrolment criteria: ≤65 years, brush biopsy-proven unresectable pCCA <3.5 cm diameter. Conformal radiotherapy was given concurrently with Capecitabine. Following surgical staging, patients received maintenance Cisplatin and Gemcitabine until transplant or progression. Time to event analyses were performed from start of neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Of 43 patients screened, 18 started treatment; median age 53.9 (26.7-62.8) years, tumour diameter 2.7 (2.0-3.4) cm. 11/18 dropped out due to metastatic disease identified during chemoradiation (n = 2), surgical staging (n = 6), or maintenance chemotherapy (n = 3). Six patients underwent transplantation. Median follow up was 17.6 (4.9-57.7) months and overall survival 16.4 months. One and two year survival was 70.6% and 35.3%, respectively. One and 2 year post transplant survival was 83.3% and 55.6%. Median progression free survival was 11.5 months. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectable early stage pCCA is feasible, although with high rates of dropout and disease progression. Further research is required to determine factors to help select patients for treatment.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs. TACE or RFA as a bridge to transplant in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. An intention-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is limited information on the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma and no study comparing its efficacy to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). We aimed to ascertain the safety and efficacy of SBRT on an intention-to-treat basis compared with TACE and RFA as a bridge to liver transplantation in a large cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Outcomes between groups were compared from the time of listing and from the time of transplant. Between July 2004 and December 2014, 379 patients were treated with either SBRT (n=36, SBRT group), TACE (n=99, TACE group) or RFA (n=244, RFA group). RESULTS: The drop-out rate was similar between groups (16.7% SBRT group vs. 20.2% TACE group and 16.8% RFA group, p=0.7); 30 patients were transplanted in the SBRT group, 79 in the TACE group and 203 in the RFA group. Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Patients in the RFA group had more tumor necrosis in the explant. The 1-, 3- and 5-year actuarial patient survival from the time of listing was 83%, 61% and 61% in the SBRT group vs. 86%, 61% and 56% in the TACE group, and 86%, 72% and 61% in the RFA group, p=0.4. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from the time of transplant was 83%, 75% and 75% in the SBRT group vs. 96%, 75% and 69% in the TACE group, and 95%, 81% and 73% in the RFA group, p=0.7. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, SBRT can be safely utilized as a bridge to LT in patients with HCC, as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with liver cancer included in the waiting list for liver transplantation are at risk of tumor progression and death. Stereotactic body radiotherapy may be a good alternative to conventional therapies to reduce this risk.

A final report of a phase I study of veliparib (ABT-888) in combination with low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation therapy (LDFWAR) in patients with advanced solid malignancies and peritoneal carcinomatosis with a dose escalation in ovarian and fallopian tube cancers.

BACKGROUND: The combination of low-dose radiation therapy with PARP inhibition enhances anti-tumor efficacy through potentiating DNA damage. We combined low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation (LDFWAR) with ABT-888 in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis with a dose escalation in ovarian and fallopian cancer patients (OV). METHODS: Patients were treated with veliparib, 40-400mg orally BID on days 1-21 of 3 28-day cycles on 6 dose levels. Dose levels 5 and 6 included only OV patients. LDFWAR consisted of 21.6Gy in 36 fractions, 0.6Gy twice daily on days 1 and 5 for weeks 1-3 of each cycle. Circulating tumor material and quality of life were serially assessed. RESULTS: 32pts were treated. Median follow-up was 45months (10-50). The most common treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities were lymphopenia (59%), anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (6%), leukopenia (6%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (6%), anorexia (6%), vomiting (6%) and fatigue (6%). The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 250mg PO BID. Median PFS was 3.6months and median OS was 9.1months. In OV patients, OS was longer for platinum-sensitive patients (10.9mo) compared to platinum-resistant patients (5.8mo). QoL decreased for all groups during treatment. Germline BRCA status was known for 14/18 patients with OV cancers, 5 of whom were BRCA mutation carriers. One objective response (3%) was observed. CONCLUSION: ABT-888 plus LDFWAR is tolerable with gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue and myelosuppression as the most common toxicities. The single observed objective response was in a germline BRCA mutated, platinum-sensitive patient.

Radiation therapy for liver tumors: ready for inclusion in guidelines?

Despite the historically limited role of radiotherapy in the management of primary hepatic malignancies, modern advances in treatment design and delivery have renewed enthusiasm for radiation as a potentially curative treatment modality. Surgical resection and/or liver transplantation are traditionally regarded as the most effective forms of therapy, although the majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma present with locally advanced or unresectable disease on the basis of local vascular invasion or inadequate baseline hepatobiliary function. In this context, many efforts have focused on nonoperative treatment approaches including novel systemic therapies, transarterial chemoembolization, ethanol ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). This review aims to summarize modern advances in radiotherapy, particularly SBRT, in the treatment of primary hepatic malignancies.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

The management of colorectal cancer liver metastases requires a multidisciplinary approach, which may incorporate systemic therapy, surgery, or local ablative therapies. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive highly conformal radiation technique that enables the delivery of large doses of radiation in a few fractions to well-defined targets using image-guidance and motion management. For selected patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases, stereotactic body radiation therapy can be delivered safely, with excellent long-term local control and overall survival. The purpose of this clinical practice review is to review the background, indications, and treatment details of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. SBRT for colorectal cancer liver metastases may be considered for patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer in combination with surgery or other locally ablative therapies; for patients who are not candidates for surgical resection; or after failure of resection or other ablative therapies. When planning SBRT both a computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging simulation may be obtained, where feasible, for target delineation. One or 3 fraction SBRT can be considered for lesions away from the central liver and luminal organs at risk, whereas 5 fraction SBRT is preferred otherwise. Image-guidance and motion management strategies are essential components of liver SBRT and will guide the creation of relevant internal and planning target volume margins. For lesions in close proximity to or overlapping with organs-at-risk, the balance between adequate local control and potential for cure with potential acute and late toxicity must be carefully considered.

Do We Have a Winner? Advocating for SBRT in HCC Management.

•Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a safe and effective locoregional therapy for inoperable patients with HCC.•SBRT compares favorably with other local therapies in terms of local control, survival, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness.•SBRT should be considered and discussed in multidisciplinary management of appropriate HCC patients.•Advances in SBRT and novel combinations with systemic therapy may further widen the therapeutic index in HCC.

The Use of MR-Guided Radiation Therapy for Liver Cancer.

The role of radiotherapy in the management of primary and metastatic liver malignancies has expanded in recent years due to advances such as IGRT and SBRT. MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) has arisen as an excellent option for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and liver metastases due to the ability to combine improved hepatic imaging with conformal treatment planning paradigms like adaptive radiotherapy and advanced motion management techniques. Herein we review the data for MRgRT for liver malignancies, as well as describe workflow and technical considerations for the 2 commercially available MRgRT delivery platforms.

Common Sense (Radiation) Oncology: Redefining targets in radiotherapy.

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars - evidence generation, interpretation and communication - to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality.

The role of stereotactic body radiotherapy in oligoprogressive malignant disease (RADIANT): oncologic outcomes from a phase 2 non-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In oligoprogressive (OP) cancer there are a limited numbers of metastatic areas progressing on a background of stable or responding widespread cancer. While the standard-of-care for OP is changing systemic therapy (ST), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being explored as an alternative local therapy targeting the sites of progression. MATERIALS/METHODS: XXX (NCTXXX) was a single-centre phase-2 study of patients with metastatic genitourinary (GU), breast and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, receiving ST for >3 months, with radiographic OP disease in <5 sites. Patients received SBRT to all OP disease in 1-5 fractions, and were maintained on ST. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of change in ST estimated using Aalen-Johansen method. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, toxicity, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL). Comparisons between diagnosis groups were done using log-rank test. A two-sided p-value of <0.05 was considered as statistical significance. RESULTS: Seventy patients were analyzed, with median age 69 years; 32 patients (46%) were female; median number of lines of prior ST was 3. Primary sites were GU (n=32; 46%), breast (n=23; 33%) and GI (n=15; 21%). Median follow-up was 12.3 months (IQR 8.2-21.6). At 1-year, change in ST occurred in 47% (95% CI 36-61%) (GU 45%, breast 41%, GI 60%, p=0.23). PFS at 1-year was 32% (95% CI 23-45%), and median PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.8-8.1) (GU 4.8, breast 6.5, GI 3.2), which significantly differed by disease type (p=0.006). OS was 75% at 1-year (95% CI 65-87%), which significantly differed between cancer type (GU 86%, breast 96%, GI 22%, p<0.001). Cumulative incidence of late grade >2 toxicity was 1.2%, with 1 patient experiencing late grade 3 toxicity, and no grade 4-5 acute or late toxicities. HRQOL declined from mean (standard deviation) of 66.9 (20.2) at baseline to 60.5 (22.2) at 6 months, which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT for OP metastases delayed change in ST in approximately half of patients, warranting investigation in randomized trials.