Repeated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In clinical practice, whether cirrhotic livers in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can withstand repeated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and toxicities in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study included patients with HCC who were treated with SBRT at least twice between January 2012 and June 2019. Local control and overall survival rates were calculated. Liver function before and after irradiation was evaluated using the Child-Pugh score and modified albumin-bilirubin grade. All toxicities were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent 136 courses (148 lesions) of SBRT, which was mostly performed for out-of-field tumors but 3 in-field recurrences. The median follow-up duration from the first SBRT was 52.6 months (range, 15.7-89.3 months). The median gross tumor volume was 4.6 cm3 (range, 0.8-55.2 cm3) at the second SBRT. The 3-year local control rate was 94.5% (95% confidence interval, 88.0%-97.5%). The 3-year overall survival rate after the second course was 62.8% (95% confidence interval, 45.1%-76.2%). Although the Child-Pugh score did not deteriorate after the second course, deterioration of the modified albumin-bilirubin grade at 6, 12, and 24 months was statistically significant compared with that before the second course. One patient (1.9%) experienced grade 3 hypoalbuminemia and 2 patients (3.8%) had grade 3 thrombocytopenia 6 months after the second course. Mild fatigue and nausea were reported in 9 (17.3%) and 6 (11.5%) patients, respectively. One instance of grade 5 toxicity was observed. Two patients (1.5%) had grade 2 gastric ulcers. No other grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicities occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated SBRT is feasible and produces minimal toxicity in patients with HCC and Child-Pugh scores of ≤7 and a low normal liver dose.

Prospective study of direct radiation exposure measurements for family members living with patients with prostate (125)I seed implantation: Evidence of radiation safety.

PURPOSE: To broaden the current understanding of radiation exposure and risk and to provide concrete evidence of radiation safety related to (125)I seed implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Direct radiation exposure measurements were obtained from dosimeters provided to 25 patients who underwent (125)I seed implantation, along with their family members. The estimated lifetime exposure dose and the precaution time for holding children near the patient's chest were calculated in two study periods. RESULTS: During the first and second study period, the mean estimated lifetime exposure doses were, respectively, 7.61 (range: 0.45, 20.21) mSv and 6.84 (range: 0.41, 19.20) mSv for patients, and 0.19 (range: 0.02, 0.54) mSv and 0.25 (range: 0.04, 1.00) mSv for family members. The mean ratios of first and second period measurements were 1.05 (range: 0.44, 3.18) for patients and 1.82 (range: 0.21, 7.04) for family members. The corresponding absolute differences between first and second period measurements were -0.77 (range: -11.40, 7.63) mSv and 0.06 (range: -0.26, 0.79) mSv, respectively. Assuming a dose limit of 1 mSv, the precaution times for holding a child every day of the first and second periods were 250.9 (range: 71.3, 849.4) min and 275.2 (range: 75.0, 883.4) min, respectively. Assuming a dose limit of 0.5 mSv, the corresponding precaution times were 179.0 (range: 35.6, 811.5) min and 178.9 (range: 37.5, 1131.8) min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated low radiation exposures to family members of patients undergoing (125)I prostate implantation. It was clear that (125)I seed implantation did not pose a threat to the safety of family members.

Predictive factors for urinary toxicity after iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: We examined the factors associated with urinary toxicities because of brachytherapy with iodine-125 with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We investigated 1313 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with iodine-125 brachytherapy with or without supplemental EBRT between 2003 and 2009. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events data were prospectively determined. Patients, treatment, and implant factors were investigated for their association with urinary toxicity or symptoms. RESULTS: IPSS resolution was not associated with biologically effective dose (BED). Baseline IPSS, total needles, and the minimal dose received by 30% of the urethra had the greatest effect according to multivariate analysis (MVA). Urinary symptom flare was associated with baseline IPSS, age, BED, and EBRT on MVA. Urinary symptom flare and urinary Grade 2 or higher (G2+) toxicity occurred in 51%, 58%, and 67% (p = 0.025) and 16%, 22%, and 20% (p = 0.497) of the <180, 180-220, and >220 Gy BED groups, respectively. Urinary G2+ toxicity was associated with baseline IPSS, neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT), and seed density on MVA. When we divided patients into four groups according to prostate volume (<30 cc or ≥30 cc) and NADT use, urinary G2+ toxicity was most commonly observed in those patients with larger prostates who received NADT, and least in the patients with smaller prostates and no NADT. CONCLUSIONS: NADT was associated with urinary G2+ toxicity. Higher dose and supplemental EBRT did not appear to increase moderate to severe urinary toxicities or time to IPSS resolution; however, it influenced urinary symptom flare.

Permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiotherapy as practiced in Japan: outcomes of 1300 patients.

PURPOSE: To report outcomes for men treated with iodine-125 ((125)I) prostate brachytherapy (BT) at a single institution in Japan. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2003 and 2009, 1313 patients (median age, 68 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with (125)I BT. Median prostate-specific antigen level was 7.6 ng/mL (range, 1.1-43.3). T-stage was T1c in 60%, T2 in 39%, and T3 in 1% of patients. The Gleason score was <7, 7, and >7 in 49%, 45%, and 6% of patients, respectively. Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was used in 40% of patients and combined external beam radiotherapy of 45 Gy in 48% of patients. Postimplant dosimetry was performed after 30 days after implantation, with total doses converted to the biologically effective dose. Survival functions were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox hazard model. RESULTS: Median followup was 67 months (range, 6-126). The 7-year biochemical freedom from failure for low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk prostate cancers were 98%, 93%, and 81%, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified the Gleason score, initial prostate-specific antigen level, positive biopsy rate, dose, and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy as predictors for biochemical freedom from failure. The 7-year actuarial developing Grade 3+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 2% and 0.3%, respectively. Forty-four percent patients with normal baseline potency retained normal erectile function at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: (125)I prostate BT is a highly effective treatment option for low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk prostate cancers. Side effects were tolerable. An adequate dose may be required to achieve successful biochemical control.