4.7 Article

Clinical assessment of coiled fiducial markers as internal surrogates for hepatocellular carcinomas during gated stereotactic body radiotherapy with a real-time tumor-tracking system

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 123, Issue 1, Pages 43-48

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.02.010

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinomas; Radiotherapy; Real-time tumor-tracldng radiotherapy system; Visicoil markers

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09999, 15K21194] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: To report the clinical usefulness of coiled fiducial markers as an internal surrogate in gated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a real-time tumor-tracking radiotherapy (RTRT) system. Materials and methods: Seventeen HCC patients with Child-Pugh (CP) scores of A or B received gated SBRT (45-50 Gy in 5-10 fractions) using an RTRT system and Visicoil markers. Local control (LC), progression free (PFS), and overall survival (OS) rates were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicities were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 4.0. Results: Of the 17 patients, 14 had a CP score A. The mean planning target volume was 54.6 cc. Only 1 patient developed pneumothorax after marker implantation. Visicoil tracking during SBRT was possible in all cases. With a median follow-up of 16 months, 1-year LC, PFS, and OS rates were 100%, 53%, and 82%, respectively. Grade >= 2 late toxicity was observed in 2 patients (grade 2 duodenal ulcer and grade 3 temporary transaminase elevation). Conclusions: Using an RTRT system and Visicoil markers, gated SBRT was well tolerated in patients with HCC. This can be considered a safe treatment strategy with potential for delivering favorable outcomes. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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