PURPOSE: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in early stages benefits from local ablative treatments such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). In this context, radiotherapy (RT) has shown promising results but has not been thoroughly evaluated. Magnetic resonance-guided RT (MRgRT) may represent a paradigm shifting improvement in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated HCC patients treated on a hybrid low-tesla MRgRT unit. A total biologically effective dose (BED) > 100 Gy was delivered in 5 consecutive fractions, respecting the appropriate organs-at-risk constraints. Hybrid MR scans were used for treatment planning and cine MR was used for delivery gating. Patients were followed up for toxicity and treatment-response assessment. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled, with a total of 12 lesions. All the lesions were irradiated with no interruptions. Six patients had already performed previous local therapies. Median follow-up after SBRT was 6.5 months (1-25). Two cases of acute toxicity were reported (G ≤ 2 according to CTCAE v4.0). At the time of the analysis, 90% of the population presented local control. Child-Pugh before and after treatment remained unchanged in all but one patient. CONCLUSION: MRgRT is a feasible and safe option showing favorable toxicity profile for HCC treatment.
PURPOSE:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in early stages benefits from local ablative treatments such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). In this context, radiotherapy (RT) has shown promising results but has not been thoroughly evaluated. Magnetic resonance-guided RT (MRgRT) may represent a paradigm shifting improvement in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated HCC patients treated on a hybrid low-tesla MRgRT unit. A total biologically effective dose (BED) > 100 Gy was delivered in 5 consecutive fractions, respecting the appropriate organs-at-risk constraints. Hybrid MR scans were used for treatment planning and cine MR was used for delivery gating. Patients were followed up for toxicity and treatment-response assessment. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled, with a total of 12 lesions. All the lesions were irradiated with no interruptions. Six patients had already performed previous local therapies. Median follow-up after SBRT was 6.5 months (1-25). Two cases of acute toxicity were reported (G ≤ 2 according to CTCAE v4.0). At the time of the analysis, 90% of the population presented local control. Child-Pugh before and after treatment remained unchanged in all but one patient. CONCLUSION: MRgRT is a feasible and safe option showing favorable toxicity profile for HCC treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hepatocellular carcinoma; Magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy; Multimodality treatment; Radiotherapy; Stereotactic body radiotherapy
Authors: Stanley H Benedict; Kamil M Yenice; David Followill; James M Galvin; William Hinson; Brian Kavanagh; Paul Keall; Michael Lovelock; Sanford Meeks; Lech Papiez; Thomas Purdie; Ramaswamy Sadagopan; Michael C Schell; Bill Salter; David J Schlesinger; Almon S Shiu; Timothy Solberg; Danny Y Song; Volker Stieber; Robert Timmerman; Wolfgang A Tomé; Dirk Verellen; Lu Wang; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: O Bohoudi; A M E Bruynzeel; S Senan; J P Cuijpers; B J Slotman; F J Lagerwaard; M A Palacios Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Shaelyn Culleton; Haiyan Jiang; Carol R Haddad; John Kim; Jim Brierley; Anthony Brade; Jolie Ringash; Laura A Dawson Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Higinia R Cárdenes; Tracy R Price; Susan M Perkins; Mary Maluccio; P Kwo; T E Breen; Mark A Henderson; Tracey E Schefter; Kathy Tudor; Jill Deluca; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Brian C Baumann; Jenny Wei; John P Plastaras; John N Lukens; Nevena Damjanov; Maarouf Hoteit; Christine Hsu; Matthew Levine; Jeffrey Mondschein; Gregory Nadolski; Kim Olthoff; Kim A Reiss; Mark Rosen; Evan Siegelman; James M Metz; Edgar Ben-Josef Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: S Corradini; F Alongi; N Andratschke; C Belka; L Boldrini; F Cellini; J Debus; M Guckenberger; J Hörner-Rieber; F J Lagerwaard; R Mazzola; M A Palacios; M E P Philippens; C P J Raaijmakers; C H J Terhaard; V Valentini; M Niyazi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Sun Hyun Bae; Mi-Sook Kim; Chul Koo Cho; Kum Bae Kim; Dong Han Lee; Chul Ju Han; Su Cheol Park; Young Han Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Luca Boldrini; Francesco Cellini; Stefania Manfrida; Giuditta Chiloiro; Stefania Teodoli; Davide Cusumano; Bruno Fionda; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Anna Maria De Gaetano; Luigi Azario; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-03-09
Authors: Paul Rogowski; Rieke von Bestenbostel; Franziska Walter; Katrin Straub; Lukas Nierer; Christopher Kurz; Guillaume Landry; Michael Reiner; Christoph Josef Auernhammer; Claus Belka; Maximilian Niyazi; Stefanie Corradini Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 6.639