ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This is a prospective study evaluating the role of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with CyberKnife (CK) in Indian patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis (HCC-PVT). METHODS: Patients with inoperable HCC-PVT, good performance score (PS), and liver function are accrued for treatment on CK (version M6) and planned with Multiplan (iDMS V2.0). Triple-phase contrast computed tomography (CT) scan was done for contouring, and the gross tumor volume (GTV) included contrast-enhancing mass within main portal vein and adjacent parenchymal disease. Dose prescription was as per-risk stratification protocol (22-50 Gy in 5 fractions) while achieving the constraints of mean liver dose <15 Gy, 800 cc liver <8 Gy, and the duodenum max of ≤24 Gy). RESULTS: Seventy-two HCC-PVT accrued till date (mean age 63 years [38-76 years], 96% male; Child-Pugh [CP] A 84%, B 9%; Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] C 96%; PS0-1: 80%, Karnofsky performance score [KPS]>70: 88%; co-morbidities 42%; infective 12%, alcohol intake 31%, adjuvant sorafenib 39%). CP scores 5, 6, 7, and 8 were in 35%, 32%, 8%, and 18%, respectively. Focal disease with portal vein thrombus (PVT) in 21%, liver involvement >50% and <50% in 46% and 32%. Liver cancer study group of Japan staging-based portal vein invasion VP2, VP3, and VP4 in 22%, 29%, and 40%. Cancer of the Liver Italian Programm (CLIP) scores 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were in 8%, 26%, 31%, 26%, and 7%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 7.3 months (median 6 months, standard deviation [SD] 6; range 3-30 months). Mean actuarial overall survival (OS) was 11.4 months (SE 1.587; 95% CI: 8-14.2 months). Six months and 12 months actuarial OS 55% and 38%, respectively. At last follow-up, 25/69 (36%) were alive and 44/69 (64%) were dead. Among 54 patients evaluated for response assessment, 23 (30%) had radiological confirmed PVT response, 1 (3%) had response of IVC thrombus, and 30 (42%) had no or minimal response to SBRT. Actuarial OS in responders and non-responders were 14.4 months (95% CI 9.4-19.2) and 7.4 months (95% CI 4.9-9.7), p-value: 0.022. Six and 12 months survival in responders and non-responders were 65.7% and 37% and 49% and 24.6%, respectively. Post-SBRT, 4 (12%) patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) 3 patients (8%) and 1 patient (4%) transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Post-CK, (<4 weeks) 2 patients (4%) had decompensation. CONCLUSIONS: PVT response or recanalization after SBRT is a statistically significant prognostic factor for survival function in HCC-PVT.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/therapy , Chemoembolization, Therapeutic , Liver Neoplasms/therapy , Radiosurgery , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Venous Thrombosis/therapy , Adult , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/complications , Female , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/complications , Male , Middle Aged , Portal Vein , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thrombosis/etiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evaluate morbidities and "quality" of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for "quality" of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. RESULTS: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was "good" in 24(67%), "fair" in 4(11%), and "poor" in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in "poor", "fair", and "good" score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during "learning curve"(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. "Good" placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0-1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3-4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in "day-care"(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax. CONCLUSION: Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, "quality" of placement is "good" in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the "learning curve". Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.
