William C Jackson1, Yebin Tao1, Mishal Mendiratta-Lala2, Latifa Bazzi1, Dan R Wahl1, Matthew J Schipper1, Mary Feng3, Kyle C Cuneo1, Theodore S Lawrence1, Dawn Owen4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: dawnowen@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used therapies for the treatment of intrahepatic metastases; however, direct comparisons are lacking. We sought to compare outcomes for these 2 modalities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2000 to 2015, 161 patients with 282 pathologically diagnosed unresectable liver metastases were treated with RFA (n = 112) or SBRT (n = 170) at a single institution. The primary outcome was freedom from local progression (FFLP). The effect of treatment and covariates on FFLP was modeled using a mixed-effects Cox model with application of inverse probability treatment weighting to adjust for potential imbalances in treatment modality. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 24.6 months. Patients receiving SBRT had larger tumors than those treated with RFA (median, 2.7 cm vs 1.8 cm; P < .01). On univariate analysis, tumor size was associated with worse FFLP for RFA (hazard ratio [HR]; 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.14; P < .01) but not for SBRT (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.76-2.51; P = .3). The 2-year FFLP rate was 88.2% compared with 73.9%, favoring SBRT (P = .06). For tumors ≥2 cm in diameter, SBRT was associated with improved FFLP (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, treatment with SBRT (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.62; P = .005) and smaller tumor size (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P = .01) were associated with improved FFLP. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.1%, with no difference between groups (P = .8). Grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicity was rare, with no difference between SBRT (n = 4) and RFA (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with SBRT or RFA is well tolerated and provides excellent and similar local control for intrahepatic metastases <2 cm in size. For tumors ≥2 cm in size, treatment with SBRT is associated with improved FFLP and may be the preferable treatment.
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used therapies for the treatment of intrahepatic metastases; however, direct comparisons are lacking. We sought to compare outcomes for these 2 modalities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2000 to 2015, 161 patients with 282 pathologically diagnosed unresectable liver metastases were treated with RFA (n = 112) or SBRT (n = 170) at a single institution. The primary outcome was freedom from local progression (FFLP). The effect of treatment and covariates on FFLP was modeled using a mixed-effects Cox model with application of inverse probability treatment weighting to adjust for potential imbalances in treatment modality. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 24.6 months. Patients receiving SBRT had larger tumors than those treated with RFA (median, 2.7 cm vs 1.8 cm; P < .01). On univariate analysis, tumor size was associated with worse FFLP for RFA (hazard ratio [HR]; 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.14; P < .01) but not for SBRT (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.76-2.51; P = .3). The 2-year FFLP rate was 88.2% compared with 73.9%, favoring SBRT (P = .06). For tumors ≥2 cm in diameter, SBRT was associated with improved FFLP (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, treatment with SBRT (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.62; P = .005) and smaller tumor size (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P = .01) were associated with improved FFLP. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.1%, with no difference between groups (P = .8). Grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicity was rare, with no difference between SBRT (n = 4) and RFA (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with SBRT or RFA is well tolerated and provides excellent and similar local control for intrahepatic metastases <2 cm in size. For tumors ≥2 cm in size, treatment with SBRT is associated with improved FFLP and may be the preferable treatment.
Authors: Bernard Nordlinger; Halfdan Sorbye; Bengt Glimelius; Graeme J Poston; Peter M Schlag; Philippe Rougier; Wolf O Bechstein; John N Primrose; Euan T Walpole; Meg Finch-Jones; Daniel Jaeck; Darius Mirza; Rowan W Parks; Murielle Mauer; Erik Tanis; Eric Van Cutsem; Werner Scheithauer; Thomas Gruenberger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Daniel R Wahl; Matthew H Stenmark; Yebin Tao; Erqi L Pollom; Elaine M Caoili; Theodore S Lawrence; Matthew J Schipper; Mary Feng Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James S Tomlinson; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; Peter Kornprat; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Kemeny; Murray F Brennan; Leslie H Blumgart; Michael D'Angelica Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Waleed Shady; Elena N Petre; Mithat Gonen; Joseph P Erinjeri; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Jeremy C Durack; Majid Maybody; Lynn A Brody; Robert H Siegelbaum; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Stephen B Solomon; Nancy E Kemeny; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Theo Ruers; Frits Van Coevorden; Cornelis J A Punt; Jean-Pierre E N Pierie; Inne Borel-Rinkes; Jonathan A Ledermann; Graeme Poston; Wolf Bechstein; Marie-Ange Lentz; Murielle Mauer; Gunnar Folprecht; Eric Van Cutsem; Michel Ducreux; Bernard Nordlinger Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jesang Yu; Dong Hwan Kim; Jungbok Lee; Yong Moon Shin; Jong Hoon Kim; Sang Min Yoon; Jinhong Jung; Jin Cheon Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Seok-Byung Lim; In Ja Park; Tae Won Kim; Yong Sang Hong; Sun Young Kim; Jeong Eun Kim; Jin-Hong Park; So Yeon Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 5.036
Authors: Cihan Gani; S Boeke; H McNair; J Ehlers; M Nachbar; D Mönnich; A Stolte; J Boldt; C Marks; J Winter; Luise A Künzel; S Gatidis; M Bitzer; D Thorwarth; D Zips Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-30
Authors: James C Lee; Michael D Green; Laura A Huppert; Christine Chow; Robert H Pierce; Adil I Daud Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jiali Yu; Michael D Green; Shasha Li; Yilun Sun; Sara N Journey; Jae Eun Choi; Syed Monem Rizvi; Angel Qin; Jessica J Waninger; Xueting Lang; Zoey Chopra; Issam El Naqa; Jiajia Zhou; Yingjie Bian; Long Jiang; Alangoya Tezel; Jeremy Skvarce; Rohan K Achar; Merna Sitto; Benjamin S Rosen; Fengyun Su; Sathiya P Narayanan; Xuhong Cao; Shuang Wei; Wojciech Szeliga; Linda Vatan; Charles Mayo; Meredith A Morgan; Caitlin A Schonewolf; Kyle Cuneo; Ilona Kryczek; Vincent T Ma; Christopher D Lao; Theodore S Lawrence; Nithya Ramnath; Fei Wen; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Marcin Cieslik; Ajjai Alva; Weiping Zou Journal: Nat Med Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Esther N D Kok; Edwin P M Jansen; Birthe C Heeres; Niels F M Kok; Tomas Janssen; Erik van Werkhoven; Fay R K Sanders; Theodore J M Ruers; Marlies E Nowee; Koert F D Kuhlmann Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-11-27