Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With or Without Transarterial Chemoembolization Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization Alone in Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to review the current evidence on the utility of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (ESHCC) patients not amenable to standard curative treatment options. METHODS: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Comparative studies reporting oncologic outcomes were included in the review. RESULTS: Five studies (one phase II randomized controlled trial, one prospective cohort, three retrospective studies) compared SBRT versus TACE. Pooled analysis showed an overall survival (OS) benefit after 3 years (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.34, p = 0.005) which persisted in the 5-year data (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06-2.22, p = 0.02) in favor of SBRT. RFS benefit with SBRT was also seen at 3 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.03-4.11, p = 0.04) which continued after 5 years (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.47-3.75, p = 0.0004). Pooled 2-year local control (LC) favored SBRT over TACE (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.89-4.63, p < 0.00001). Two retrospective studies compared TACE + SBRT versus TACE alone. Pooled analysis showed significantly improved 3-year OS (OR 5.47; 95% CI 2.47-12.11, p < 0.0001) and LC (OR: 21.05; 95% CI 5.01-88.39, p ≤ 0.0001) in favor of the TACE + SBRT group. A phase III study showed significantly improved LC and PFS with SBRT after failed TACE/TAE versus further TACE/TAE. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account the limitations of the included studies, our review suggests significantly improved clinical outcomes in all groups having SBRT as a component of treatment versus TACE alone or further TACE. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further define the role of SBRT and TACE for ESHCC.

The Role of postoperative external beam radiotherapy for differentiated thyroid carcinoma: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The indications for external beam radiotherapy (RT) in differentiated thyroid carcinomas (DTC) are still undefined. The objective of this study was to synthesize current evidence defining the role of postoperative RT in patients with DTC. A systematic review and meta-analysis were done. Included studies compared oncologic outcomes and toxicity of RT vs no RT in patients with DTC. Nine studies were included, two prospective and seven retrospective cohorts. RT improved 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival but not overall survival and distant metastasis failure-free survival. The locoregional control benefit was seen in patients at increased risk for recurrence, including those with advanced age, locoregionally advanced disease, gross or microscopic residual tumor, and structural invasion. Serious RT-related acute and late toxicities were rare. Available evidence suggests that postoperative RT can improve locoregional control in high-risk DTC with acceptable toxicity. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Assessing the Effect of Radiotherapy in Addition to Surgery in Colon Adenocarcinomas: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Contemporary Evidence.

PURPOSE: This study aims to review the contemporary evidence investigating radiotherapy (RT) in addition to surgery for colon adenocarcinomas. METHODS: We searched the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, ASCOpubs, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies (since January 2005) comparing outcomes of high-risk colon adenocarcinomas who underwent RT in addition to surgery versus no RT were eligible. Pooling of outcomes from published results or from analysis of survival curves was done. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine if the efficacy of RT varies with RT timing. RESULTS: Eight studies were included (five retrospective cohorts, three population-based studies). Pooled analysis from retrospective cohorts showed a reduction in 5-year LR (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.79; p = 0.007) in the RT group. A benefit in 3-year (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.15-2.87; p = 0.01) and 5-year (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.21-3.63; p = 0.008) DFS and in 3-year (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.43-4.54; p = 0.001) and 5-year (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.17-3.41; p = 0.01) OS was seen in the RT group. The OS benefit was demonstrated in the subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant RT, but not with adjuvant RT. The improvement in OS with neoadjuvant RT was supported by a population-based study from NCDB, while results from two population-based studies investigating adjuvant RT were conflicting. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the limitations of the studies, our review of evidence suggests a possible role of RT in improving oncologic outcomes of select colon adenocarcinomas. Prospective studies are needed to definitively assess the value of RT for colon cancer.

Reirradiation for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinomas: Experience From an Academic Tertiary Center in a Low- to Middle-Income Country.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to report the oncologic outcomes and the treatment-related toxicities after reirradiation (re-RT) for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (rNPC) at our institution and to apply a recently published prognostic model for survival in rNPC in our cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with rNPC treated at the authors' institution with re-RT were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment modalities for re-RT were intensity-modulated radiotherapy (n = 14), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n = 9), single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 6), fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (n = 2), and high dose rate intracavitary brachytherapy (n = 1). Twenty-seven patients received re-RT with curative intent, whereas five patients were treated palliatively. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 15.5 months (range, 1 to 123 months) for the entire cohort and 20 months (range, 3 to 123 months) for patients treated with curative intent. For the entire cohort, median locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) was 14 months, with actuarial 1- and 2-year LRRFS estimates of 67.5% and 44.0%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) time was 38 months, with actuarial 1- and 2-year estimates of 74.2% and 57.2%, respectively. For patients treated with curative intent, median LRRFS was not reached. Actuarial 1- and 2-year LRRFS estimates were 68.2% and 54.5%, respectively. Median OS time after curative intent re-RT was 42 months, with actuarial 1- and 2-year estimates of 75.4% and 63.8%, respectively. One- and 2-year OS estimates based on risk stratification were 68.6% for high risk compared with 80.8% for low risk and 34.3% for high risk compared with 70.7% for low risk, respectively ( P = .223). Three patients (9.4%) developed symptomatic temporal lobe necrosis. There was no reported grade 5 treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION: Results of the study suggest that re-RT is an effective and safe salvage treatment strategy for rNPC. Re-RT to a maximum equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions of 60 Gy may yield good LRRFS and translate to prolonged OS.

Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy Versus No Radiotherapy for Stage IV Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to review the contemporary evidence comparing neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) versus no radiotherapy (no RT) in patients with stage IV rectal cancer. METHODS: Literature was searched for studies using the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, ASCOpubs, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies reporting outcomes for stage IV rectal cancer patients who underwent NRT or no RT were selected. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included in this review (one RCT, five retrospective cohorts, two population-based studies). The only RCT in this review reported no significant difference in 2- and 5-year local recurrence (NRT versus no RT) 10.1% versus 23.8%, and 15.9% versus 26.9%, respectively. However, multivariate analysis showed the effect of treatment might not have differed between subgroups according to stage. Pooled analysis from five retrospective studies showed significantly improved local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) with NRT (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.31, p = 0.03), which was maintained in the subgroup who underwent metastasectomy. (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.37, p = 0.04). Pooled 5-year overall survival (OS) showed a statistically significant benefit with NRT (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.14-1.89, p = 0.003), which was not seen in the subgroup who underwent metastasectomy (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.94-1.82, p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: The current available evidence shows an LRFS benefit with NRT over no RT in patients with stage IV rectal cancer. The review also suggests a possible OS benefit with NRT, although this finding should be interpreted with caution.