Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy For Liver Metastases Research Articles

Local Control After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Tumors

To quantitatively evaluate published experiences with hepatic stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), to determine local control rates after treatment of primary and metastatic liver tumors and to examine whether outcomes are affected by SBRT dosing regimen. We identified published articles that reported local control rates after SBRT for primary or metastatic liver tumors. Biologically effective doses (BEDs) were calculated for each dosing regimen using the linear-quadratic equation. We excluded series in which a wide range of BEDs was used. Individual lesion data for local control were extracted from actuarial survival curves, and data were aggregated to form a single dataset. Actuarial local control curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method after grouping lesions by disease type and BED (<100 Gy10 vs >100 Gy10). Comparisons were made using log-rank testing. Thirteen articles metall inclusion criteria and formed the dataset for this analysis. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year actuarial local control rates after SBRT for primary liver tumors (n=431) were 93%, 89%, and 86%, respectively. Lower 1- (90%), 2-(79%), and 3-year (76%) actuarial local control rates were observed for liver metastases (n=290, log-rank P=.011). Among patients treated with SBRT for primary liver tumors, there was no evidence that local control is influenced by BED within the range of schedules used. For liver metastases, on the other hand, outcomes were significantly better for lesions treated with BEDs exceeding 100 Gy10 (3-year local control 93%) than for those treated with BEDs of ≤100 Gy10 (3-year local control 65%, P<.001). Stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary liver tumors provides high rates of durable local control, with no clear evidence for a dose-response relationshipamong commonly utilized schedules. Excellent local control rates arealsoseen after SBRT for liver metastases when BEDs of >100 Gy10 are utilized.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver oligo-recurrence and oligo-progression from various tumors.

PurposeTo evaluate the outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with liver oligo-recurrence and oligo-progression from various primary tumors. Materials and MethodsBetween 2002 and 2013, 72 patients with liver oligo-recurrence (oligo-metastasis with a controlled primary tumor) and oligo-progression (contradictory progression of a few sites of disease despite an overall tumor burden response to therapy) underwent SBRT. Of these, 9 and 8 patients with uncontrollable distant metastases and patients immediate loss to follow-up, respectively, were excluded. The total planning target volume was used to select the SBRT dose (median, 48 Gy; range, 30 to 60 Gy, 3–4 fractions). Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0.ResultsWe evaluated 55 patients (77 lesions) treated with SBRT for liver metastases. All patients had controlled primary lesions, and 28 patients had stable lesions at another site (oligo-progression). The most common primary site was the colon (36 patients), followed by the stomach (6 patients) and other sites (13 patients). The 2-year local control and progression-free survival rates were 68% and 22%, respectively. The 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 56% and 20%, respectively. The most common adverse events were grade 1–2 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting; no grade ≥3 toxicities were observed. Univariate analysis revealed that oligo-progression associated with poor survival. ConclusionSBRT for liver oligo-recurrence and oligo-progression appears safe, with similar local control rates. For liver oligo-progression, criteria are needed to select patients in whom improved overall survival can be expected through SBRT.

The impact of respiratory motion and treatment technique on stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which delivers a much higher fractional dose than conventional treatment in only a few fractions, is an effective treatment for liver metastases. For patients who are treated under free-breathing conditions, however, respiration-induced tumor motion in the liver is a concern. Limited clinical information is available related to the impact of tumor motion and treatment technique on the dosimetric consequences. This study evaluated the dosimetric deviations between planned and delivered SBRT dose in the presence of tumor motion for three delivery techniques: three-dimensional conformal static beams (3DCRT), dynamic conformal arc (DARC), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Five cases treated with SBRT for liver metastases were included in the study, with tumor motions ranging from 0.5 to 1.75 cm. For each case, three different treatment plans were developed using 3DCRT, DARC, and IMRT. The gantry/multileaf collimator (MLC) motion in the DARC plans and the MLC motion in the IMRT plans were synchronized to the patient's respiratory motion. Retrospectively sorted four-dimensional computed tomography image sets were used to determine patient-organ motion and to calculate the dose delivered during each respiratory phase. Deformable registration, using thin-plate-spline models, was performed to encode the tumor motion and deformation and to register the dose-per-phase to the reference phase images. The different dose distributions resulting from the different delivery techniques and motion ranges were compared to assess the effect of organ motion on dose delivery. Voxel dose variations occurred mostly in the high gradient regions, typically between the target volume and normal tissues, with a maximum variation up to 20%. The greatest CTV variation of all the plans was seen in the IMRT technique with the largest motion range (D99: -8.9%, D95: -8.3%, and D90: -6.3%). The greatest variation for all 3DCRT plans was less than 2% for D95. Dose variations for DARC fell between the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques. The dose volume histogram variations for normal organs were negligible. Therefore, the IMRT technique may be a preferable treatment choice in cases where the target volume and critical organs are in close proximity, or when normal organ protection is a high priority, provided that motion effect for the target volume can be managed.