4.5 Article

Prognostic factors affecting local control of hepatic tumors treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy

Journal

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-7-166

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver metastases; SBRT; Local control; Prognostic fractors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy with real-time tumor tracking has shown encouraging results for hepatic tumors with good efficacy and low toxicity. We studied the factors associated with local control of primary or secondary hepatic lesions post-SBRT. Methods and materials: Since 2007, 153 stereotactic liver treatments were administered to 120 patients using the CyberKnife(R) System. Ninety-nine liver metastases (72 patients), 48 hepatocellular carcinomas (42 patients), and six cholangiocarcinomas were treated. On average, three to four sessions were delivered over 12 days. Twenty-seven to 45 Gy was prescribed to the 80% isodose line. Margins consisted of 5 to 10 mm for clinical target volume (CTV) and 3 mm for planning target volume (PTV). Results: Median size was 33 mm (range, 5-112 mm). Median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 32.38 cm(3) (range, 0.2-499.5 cm(3)). Median total dose was 45 Gy in three fractions. Median minimum dose was 27 Gy in three fractions. With a median follow-up of 15.0 months, local control rates at one and two years were 84% and 74.6%, respectively. The factors associated with better local control were lesion size < 50 mm (p = 0.019), GTV volume (p < 0.05), PTV volume (p < 0.01) and two treatment factors: a total dose of 45 Gy and a dose-per-fraction of 15 Gy (p = 0.019). Conclusions: Dose, tumor diameter and volume are prognostic factors for local control when a stereotactic radiation therapy for hepatic lesions is considered. These results should be considered in order to obtain a maximum therapeutic efficacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available