INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Categoria dell'articolo: Research Article
Pubblicato online: 18 mag 2025
Pagine: 61 - 67
Ricevuto: 13 mar 2024
Accettato: 05 feb 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fco-2024-0006
Parole chiave
© 2024 Vito Filbert Jayalie et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Radiation therapy in hepatic carcinoma_
| 1 | Bae |
Systematic review/meta-analysis | Outcomes and hepatic toxicity after SBRT for liver-confined HCC | Seventeen observational studies between 2003 and 2019 | 1889 patients with HCC treated with ≤9 SBRT fractions | The 3- and 5-year OS rates after SBRT were 57% (95% CI: 47%–66%) and 40% (95% CI: 29%–51%), respectively. The 3- and 5-year LC rates after SBRT were 84% (95% CI: 77%–90%) and 82% (95% CI: 74%–88%), respectively. Five-year LC and OS rates of 79% (95% CI: 0.74–0.84) and 25% (95% CI: 0.20–0.30), respectively, were observed in the individual patient data analyses. SBRT is an effective treatment modality for patients with HCC with mature follow-up |
| 2. | Kim |
Retrospective study | Efficacy of SBRT and RFA for HCC, FFLP | Patients treated for HCC between 2012 and 2016 | 668 patients who underwent RFA of 736 tumors and 105 patients who underwent SBRT of 114 tumors | SBRT-treated tumors were more advanced, larger (median: 2.4 vs. 1.6 cm), and more frequently located in the subphrenic region than RFA-treated tumors ( |
| 3 | Wahl |
Retrospective study | Outcomes between SBRT and RFA for HCC | HCC patients from 2004 to 2012 | 224 patients with inoperable, nonmetastatic HCC underwent RFA (n = 161) to 249 tumors or image-guided SBRT (n = 63) to 83 tumors | One- and 2-year FFLP for tumors treated with RFA were 83.6% and 80.2%, respectively, and for tumors treated with SBRT were 97.4% and 83.8%, respectively. Increasing tumor size predicted for FFLP in patients treated with RFA (HR: 1.54 per cm; |
| 4 | Rim |
Hybrid meta-analysis | Comparison between RFA and ablative RT for HCC | Twenty-one studies | 4,638 patients | Pooled 1- and 2-year survival rates for HCC studies were 91.8% and 77.7% after RFA and 89.0% and 76.0% after ablative RT, respectively; ablative RT can yield oncologic outcomes similar to RFA, and suggests that it can be more effective for the treatment of tumors in locations where RFA is difficult to perform or for large-sized tumors |
| 5 | Dumago |
Systematic review/meta-analysis | Utility of SBRT, with or without TACE, for early-stage HCC patients not amenable to standard curative treatment options | Literature, comparative studies | Five studies (one Phase II randomized controlled trial, one prospective cohort, and three retrospective studies) compared SBRT versus TACE | Clinical outcomes improved significantly in all groups having SBRT as a component of treatment versus TACE alone or further TACE |
| 6 | Wong |
Retrospective study | Outcomes of nonresectable HCC patients who had TACE versus SBRT after TACE (TACE + SBRT) | 49 patients were in the TACE + SBRT group and 98 patients were in the TACE group | TACE + SBRT is safe and results in better survival in nonresectable HCC patients | |
| 7 | Shen |
Retrospective study | Comparison of efficacy between SBRT and Sorafenib, when given after TACE Efficacy in comparison to SBRT + sorafenib, when combined with TACE | 77 HCC patients with macroscopic vascular invasion receiving TACE–SBRT or TACE–sorafenib combination therapies | 26 patients (33.8%) received TACE–SBRT treatment and 51 (66.2%) received TACE–sorafenib treatment | HR of OS to PFS for the TACE–SBRT approach and the TACE–sorafenib approach was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.17–0.75; |
| 8. | Yoon |
Randomized clinical trial | Efficacy and safety compared with sorafenib for patients with HCC and macroscopic of TACE plus RT vascular invasion | Randomized, open-label clinical trial, 90 treatment-naive patients with liver-confined HCC showing macroscopic vascular invasion | Sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; 45 participants [the sorafenib group]) or TACE (every 6 weeks) plus RT (within 3 weeks after the first TACE, maximum 45 Gy with a fraction size of 2.5–3 Gy; 45 participants [the TACE-RT group]) | At week 12, the PFS rate was significantly higher in the TACE-RT group than in the sorafenib group (86.7% vs 34.3%; |
| 9 | Sapisochin |
Observational study | Safety and efficacy of SBRT on an intention-to-treat basis compared with TACE and RFA as a bridge to liver transplantation in a large cohort of patients with HCC | 379 patients | SBRT (n = 36, SBRT group), TACE (n = 99, TACE group), or RFA (n = 244, RFA group) | SBRT can be safely utilized as a bridge to LT in patients with HCC, as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies |
Studies about SBRT in liver metastasis_
| 1 | Jackson |
Retrospective study | FFLP with SBRT and RFA for the treatment of intrahepatic metastases | 161 patients with 282 pathologically diagnosed unresectable liver metastasis | RFA (n = 112) or SBRT (n = 170) |
Treatment with SBRT (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07–0.62; Treatment with SBRT or RFA is well tolerated and provides excellent and similar LC 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 |
| 2. | Rim |
Hybrid meta-analysis | Oncologic outcomes and clinical consideration of RFA and ablative RT for intrahepatic malignancies | Studies comparing RFA and ablative RT for HCC | Twenty-one studies involving 4,638 patients | Pooled 1- and 2-year survival rates for metastasis studies were 88.2% and 66.4% after RFA and 82.7% and 60.6% after RT, respectively |
| 3 | Palma |
Phase II randomized trial | OS, PFS, toxicity, and QOL | Controlled primary malignancy and one to five metastatic lesions, with all metastases being amenable to SABR | 99 patients | Common primary tumor types were breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate. Five-year OS of SABR + SOC was 42.3%, compared to 17.7% in the SOC arm. No significant difference in adverse events and QOL between arms |
| 4 | Mendez |
Retrospective study | Outcomes of SBRT for liver metastasis | A shared web-based registry of patients with liver metastases treated with SBRT was developed by 13 centers (12 in the Netherlands and one in Belgium) | 515 patients | The most used fractionation scheme was 3 × 18–20 Gy (36.0%), followed by 8 × 7.5 Gy (31.8%), 5 × 11–12 Gy (25.5%), and 12 × 5 Gy (6.7%). Actuarial 1-year LC was 87%; 1-year OS was 84%. Toxicity of grade 3 or greater was found in 3.9% of the patients SBRT should be considered a valuable part of the multidisciplinary approach for treating liver metastases |
| 5 | Yu |
Retrospective study | Treatment outcomes of RFA and SBRT for CRLM | 222 colorectal cancer patients with 330 CRLM |
• RFA (268 tumors in 178 patients) • SBRT (62 tumors in 44 patients) |
SBRT and RFA showed similar LC in the treatment of patients with CRLM. Tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for LC, and SBRT may be preferred for a larger tumor |
| 6 | de la Peña |
Literature review | SBRT in the management of liver metastasis regarding LC, OS, and toxicity | 24 patients with 32 liver metastases | Colorectal carcinoma was the most common primary cancer. Overall 1- and 2-year LC rates were 82% (95% CI: 70%–98%) and 76.2% (95% CI: 45%–90%), respectively. SBRT achieved excellent LC and OS rates with low toxicity in patients with liver metastases | |
| 7 | Lee |
Retrospective study | Comparison between RFA and SBRT | 11 studies involving 2238 patients | Three studies for liver metastasis | The pooled 2-year LC rate was higher in the SBRT arm (83.6% vs. 60.0%, |