4.7 Article

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.058

Keywords

Cyberknife; Radiotherapy; Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma; Stereotactic body radiation therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the safety and efficacy of Cyberknife stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and its effect on survival in patients of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods and Materials: This was a matched-pair study. From January 2008 to December 2009, 36 patients with 42 lesions of unresectable recurrent HCC were treated with SBRT. The median prescribed dose was 37 Gy (range, 25 to 48 Gy) in 4-5 fractions over 4-5 consecutive working days. Another 138 patients in the historical control group given other or no treatments were selected for matched analyses. Results: The median follow-up time was 14 months for all patients and 20 months for those alive. The 1- and 2-year in-field failure-free rates were 87.6% and 75.1%, respectively. Outfield intrahepatic recurrence was the main cause of failure. The 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 64.0%, and median time to progression was 8.0 months. In the multivariable analysis of all 174 patients, SBRT (yes vs. no), tumor size (<= 4 cm vs. >4 cm), recurrent stage (stage IIIB/IV vs. I) and Child-Pugh classification (A vs. B/C) were independent prognostic factors for OS. Matched-pair analysis revealed that patients undergoing SBRT had better OS (2-year OS of 72.6% vs. 42.1%, respectively, p = 0.013). Acute toxicities were mild and tolerable. Conclusion: SBRT is a safe and efficacious modality and appears to be well-tolerated at the dose fractionation we have used, and its use correlates with improved survival in this cohort of patients with recurrent unresectable HCC. Out-field recurrence is the major cause of failure. Further studies of combinations of SBRT and systemic therapies may be reasonable. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available