Tae Hyun Kim1, Young Hwan Koh2, Bo Hyun Kim3, Min Ju Kim4, Ju Hee Lee2, Boram Park5, Joong-Won Park6. 1. Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Center for Proton Therapy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 2. Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 3. Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 5. Biostatistics Collaboration Team, Research Core Center, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 6. Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: jwpark@ncc.re.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has recently been applied to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, there is no randomized controlled trial-based evidence on its safety and efficacy. We compared the outcomes of PBT and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with recurrent/residual HCC (rHCC) in a phase III non-inferiority trial. METHODS: Patients with rHCC (size <3 cm, number ≤2) were randomly assigned to receive PBT or RFA according to Child-Pugh score and tumor stage. After randomization, if the assigned treatment was technically infeasible, crossover was allowed. The primary endpoint was 2-year local progression-free survival (LPFS), with a non-inferiority margin of 15% in the per-protocol (PP) population; a complementary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (NCT01963429). RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 144 patients receiving either PBT (n = 72) or RFA (n = 72). Six patients switched from the PBT arm to the RFA arm and 19 patients switched from the RFA arm to the PBT arm. In the PP population, the 2-year LPFS rate with PBT (n = 80) vs. RFA (n = 56) was 94.8% vs. 83.9%, a difference of 10.9 percentage points (90% CI 1.8-20.0; p <0.001); in the ITT population, the 2-year LPFS rate with PBT vs. RFA was 92.8% vs. 83.2%, a difference of 9.6 percentage points (90% CI 0.7-18.4; p <0.001), meeting the criteria for non-inferiority. The 3- and 4-year LPFS rates for PBT were also non-inferior to those for RFA. The most common adverse events were radiation pneumonitis (32.5%) and decreased leukocyte counts (23.8%) for PBT and increased alanine aminotransferase levels (96.4%) and abdominal pain (30.4%) for RFA. No Grade 4 adverse events or mortality were noted. CONCLUSIONS: PBT showed LPFS values that were non-inferior to those for RFA; in addition, PBT was tolerable and safe. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: #NCT01963429 (ClinicalTrials.gov). LAY SUMMARY: Radiofrequency ablation is the standard of care for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma in whom surgery is not feasible. This study is the first phase III randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical outcomes of proton beam radiotherapy vs. radiofrequency ablation in patients with recurrent small HCC. Our findings show that this new technique is not inferior and can be applied safely in patients with small recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has recently been applied to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, there is no randomized controlled trial-based evidence on its safety and efficacy. We compared the outcomes of PBT and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with recurrent/residual HCC (rHCC) in a phase III non-inferiority trial. METHODS: Patients with rHCC (size <3 cm, number ≤2) were randomly assigned to receive PBT or RFA according to Child-Pugh score and tumor stage. After randomization, if the assigned treatment was technically infeasible, crossover was allowed. The primary endpoint was 2-year local progression-free survival (LPFS), with a non-inferiority margin of 15% in the per-protocol (PP) population; a complementary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (NCT01963429). RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 144 patients receiving either PBT (n = 72) or RFA (n = 72). Six patients switched from the PBT arm to the RFA arm and 19 patients switched from the RFA arm to the PBT arm. In the PP population, the 2-year LPFS rate with PBT (n = 80) vs. RFA (n = 56) was 94.8% vs. 83.9%, a difference of 10.9 percentage points (90% CI 1.8-20.0; p <0.001); in the ITT population, the 2-year LPFS rate with PBT vs. RFA was 92.8% vs. 83.2%, a difference of 9.6 percentage points (90% CI 0.7-18.4; p <0.001), meeting the criteria for non-inferiority. The 3- and 4-year LPFS rates for PBT were also non-inferior to those for RFA. The most common adverse events were radiation pneumonitis (32.5%) and decreased leukocyte counts (23.8%) for PBT and increased alanine aminotransferase levels (96.4%) and abdominal pain (30.4%) for RFA. No Grade 4 adverse events or mortality were noted. CONCLUSIONS: PBT showed LPFS values that were non-inferior to those for RFA; in addition, PBT was tolerable and safe. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: #NCT01963429 (ClinicalTrials.gov). LAY SUMMARY: Radiofrequency ablation is the standard of care for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma in whom surgery is not feasible. This study is the first phase III randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical outcomes of proton beam radiotherapy vs. radiofrequency ablation in patients with recurrent small HCC. Our findings show that this new technique is not inferior and can be applied safely in patients with small recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.
Authors: Francesco Dionisi; Daniele Scartoni; Francesco Fracchiolla; Irene Giacomelli; Benedetta Siniscalchi; Lucia Goanta; Marco Cianchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Alberto Brolese Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Jana M Kobeissi; Lara Hilal; Charles B Simone; Haibo Lin; Christopher H Crane; Carla Hajj Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-12 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Sung Uk Lee; Sang Min Yoon; Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng; Tae Hyun Kim; Bo Hyun Kim; Jin-Hong Park; Jinhong Jung; Chiao-Ling Tsai; Yun Chiang; Joong-Won Park Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 6.244