A phase 2 multicenter study of stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Although several prospective studies have reported the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), treatment-related toxicity varies and has not been determined. Therefore, the authors evaluated the safety and efficacy of SBRT for patients with HCC in a hepatitis B virus-endemic area. METHODS: This multicenter phase 2 trial enrolled patients with unresectable HCC. Patients received SBRT with 45 to 60 Gy in 3 fractions. To evaluate gastroduodenal toxicity, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed before and 2 months after SBRT. The primary endpoint was treatment-related severe toxicity at 1 year after SBRT. The secondary endpoints were the 2-year local control, progression-free survival, and overall survival rates. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients were enrolled between January 2012 and April 2015, and 65 eligible patients were analyzed. One patient experienced radiation-induced liver disease with acute grade ≥3 toxicity 1 month after SBRT. In addition, 1 patient had a grade 3 esophageal ulcer with stenosis 5 months after SBRT. The actuarial rate of treatment-related severe toxicity at 1 year was 3%. The pre-SBRT and post-SBRT EGD findings were not significantly different among the 57 evaluable patients who underwent EGD. The 2-year and 3-year local control rates were 97% and 95%, respectively. The progression-free and overall survival rates were 48% and 84% at 2 years, respectively, and 36% and 76% at 3 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With a median follow-up of 41 months, this prospective multicenter study demonstrated that SBRT for patients with HCC is well tolerated and is an effective treatment modality.

Quality assurance for a multicenter Phase II study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤5 cm: a planning dummy run.

OBJECTIVE: The Korean Radiation Oncology Group (12-02) investigated the outcome of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤5 cm using 60 Gy in three fractions. To evaluate dosimetric differences and compliance in a multicenter trial, a planning dummy run procedure was performed. METHODS: All six participating institutions were provided the contours of two dummy run cases. Plans were performed following the study protocol to cover the planning target volume with a minimum of 90% of the prescription dose and to satisfy the constraints for organs at risk. We assessed the institutional variations in plans using dose-volume histograms. RESULTS: Different planning techniques were applied: static intensity-modulated radiotherapy in two institutions, CyberKnife in two institutions and RapidArc in two institutions. The conformity index of all 12 plans was ≤1.2. In terms of the planning target volume coverage, all participants followed our study protocol. For the second dummy run case, located in Segment 8 near the heart, the minimum dose of the planning target volume (D99%: dose covering 99% of the planning target volume) was variable because there was no mention of constraints of D99% of the planning target volume in the study protocol. As an important organ at risk, the normal liver volumes receiving <17 Gy in all 12 plans were >700 ml. CONCLUSIONS: Dosimetric parameters showed acceptable compliance with the study protocol. However, we found the possibility of underdose to the planning target volume if the hepatocellular carcinoma lesion was located near organs at risk such as the heart. Based on this dummy run, we will conduct individual case reviews to minimize the effects of study protocol deviation.

Practical patterns for stereotactic body radiotherapy to hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea: a survey of the Korean Stereotactic Radiosurgery Group.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate practical patterns for stereotactic body radiotherapy to hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea. METHODS: In June 2013, the Korean Stereotactic Radiosurgery Group of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology conducted a national patterns-of-care survey about stereotactic body radiotherapy to the liver lesion in hepatocellular carcinoma, consisting of 19 questions and 2 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: All 208 radiation oncologists (100%), who are regular members of Korean Society for Radiation Oncology, responded to this survey. Among these, 95 radiation oncologists were specialists for hepatology; 64 physicians did not use stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 31 physicians used stereotactic body radiotherapy. Most physicians (52%) performed stereotactic body radiotherapy to hepatocellular carcinoma in ≤5 cases per year. Physicians applied stereotactic body radiotherapy according to tumour size and baseline Child-Pugh class. All physicians agreed the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy to 2.8-cm hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh class of A, while 23 physicians (74%) selected stereotactic body radiotherapy for Child-Pugh class of B. Nineteen physicians (61%) selected stereotactic body radiotherapy to 5-cm hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh class of A, and only 14 physicians (45%) selected stereotactic body radiotherapy for Child-Pugh class of B. On the other hand, the preferred dose scheme was same as 60 Gy in three fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Among radiation oncologists in Korea, there was diversity in the practice for stereotactic body radiotherapy to the liver lesion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Additional prospective studies are necessary to standardize the practice and establish Korea-specific practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma stereotactic body radiotherapy.

A Survey of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Korea.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the current status of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in Korea. A nationwide survey was conducted by the Korean Stereotactic Radiosurgery Group of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (KROG 13-13). MATERIALS AND METHODS: SBRT was defined as radiotherapy with delivery of a high dose of radiation to an extracranial lesion in ≤ 4 fractions. A 16-questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to the chief of radiation oncology at 85 institutions in June 2013. RESULTS: All institutions (100%) responded to this survey. Of these, 38 institutions (45%) have used SBRT and 47 institutions (55%) have not used SBRT. Regarding the treatment site, the lung (92%) and liver (76%) were the two most common sites. The most common schedules were 60 Gy/4 fractions for non-small cell lung cancer, 48 Gy/4 fractions for lung metastases, 60 Gy/3 fractions for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 45 Gy/3 fractions or 40 Gy/4 fractions for liver metastases. Four-dimensional computed tomography (CT) was the most common method for planning CT (74%). During planning CT, the most common method of immobilization was the use of an alpha cradle/vacuum-lock (42%). CONCLUSION: Based on this survey, conduct of further prospective studies will be needed in order to determine the appropriate prescribed doses and to standardize the practice of SBRT.

Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided fiducial marker implantation for CyberKnife radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and technical success rate of an ultrasound-guided fiducial marker implantation in preparation for CyberKnife radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 270 percutaneous ultrasound-guided fiducial marker implantations in 77 patients, which were performed from June 2008 through March 2011. Of 270 implantations, 104 were implanted in metastatic lymph nodes, 96 were in the liver, 39 were in the pancreas, and 31 were in the prostate. During and after the implantation, major and minor procedure-related complications were documented. We defined technical success as the implantation enabling adequate treatment planning and CT simulation. RESULTS: The major and minor complication rates were 1% and 21%, respectively. One patient who had an implantation in the liver suffered severe abdominal pain, biloma, and pleural effusion, which were considered as major complication. Abdominal pain was the most common complication in 11 patients (14%). Among nine patients who had markers inserted in the prostate, one had transient hematuria for less than 24 hours, and the other experienced transient voiding difficulty. Of the 270 implantations, 261 were successful (97%). The reasons for unsuccessful implantations included migration of fiducial markers (five implantations, 2%) and failure to discriminate the fiducial markers (three implantations, 1%). Among the unsuccessful implantation cases, six patients required additional procedures (8%). CONCLUSION: The symptomatic complications following ultrasound-guided percutaneous implantation of fiducial markers are relatively low. However, careful consideration of the relatively higher rate of migration and discrimination failure is needed when performing ultrasound-guided percutaneous implantations of fiducial markers.