|
1
|
Sharma D, Khosla D, Meena BL, Yadav HP, Kapoor R. Exploring the Evolving Landscape of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2025; 15:102386. [PMID: 39282593 PMCID: PMC11399579 DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2024.102386] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 07/29/2024] [Indexed: 09/19/2024] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) carries significant morbidity and mortality. Management of the HCC requires a multidisciplinary approach. Surgical resection and liver transplantation are the gold standard options for the appropriate settings. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a promising treatment modality in managing HCC; its use is more studied and well-established in advanced HCC (aHCC). Current clinical guidelines universally endorse SBRT as a viable alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), and transarterial radioembolisation (TARE), a recommendation substantiated by literature demonstrating comparable efficacy among these modalities. In early-stage HCC, SBRT primarily manages unresectable tumours unsuitable for ablative procedures such as microwave ablation and RFA. SBRT has been incorporated as a modality to downstage tumours or as a bridge to transplant. In the case of intermediate or advanced HCC, SBRT offers excellent results either as a single modality or adjunct to other locoregional modalities such as TACE/TARE. Recent data from late-stage HCC patients illustrate the effectiveness of SBRT in achieving local tumour control while minimising damage to surrounding healthy liver tissue. It has promising local control of approximately 80-90% in managing HCC. Additional prospective data comparing the efficacy of SBRT with the first-line recommended therapies such as RFA, TACE, and surgery are essential. The standard of care for patients with advanced/metastatic disease is systemic therapy (immunotherapy/tyrosine kinase inhibitors). SBRT, in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, has an immune-modulatory effect that results in a synergistic effect. Recent findings indicate that the combination of immunotherapy and SBRT in HCC is well-tolerated and exhibits synergistic effects. Further exploration of diverse immunotherapy and radiotherapy strategies is essential to identify the appropriate time for combination treatments and to optimise dose and fraction regimens. Prospective, randomised studies are imperative to establish SBRT as the primary treatment for HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deepti Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Divya Khosla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Babu L. Meena
- Department of Hepatology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Hanuman P. Yadav
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Rakesh Kapoor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Kierans AS, Fowler KJ, Chernyak V. LI-RADS in 2024: recent updates, planned refinements, and future directions. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024:10.1007/s00261-024-04730-w. [PMID: 39671010 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04730-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2024] [Revised: 11/25/2024] [Accepted: 11/26/2024] [Indexed: 12/14/2024]
Abstract
Initially released in 2011, liver imaging reporting and data (LI-RADS) CT/MRI diagnostic algorithm categorizes hepatic observations on an ordinal scale based on the probability of hepatocellular carcinoma, malignancy, or benignity, and guides reproducible interpretation, clear communication, and standardized terminology for liver imaging. LI-RADS has significantly expanded in scope in the past decade, with the inclusion of algorithms that address screening and surveillance, diagnosis with contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and treatment response assessment with both CEUS and CT/MRI. LI-RADS algorithms undergo periodic refinements based on accumulating scientific evidence, user feedback, and technological advancements. This manuscript discusses recent LI-RADS algorithm refinements, planned updates, with a focus on LI-RADS CT/MRI diagnostic algorithm, and future goals.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Aslam A, Chernyak V, Miller FH, Bashir M, Do R, Sirlin C, Lewandowski RJ, Kim CY, Kielar AZ, Kambadakone AR, Yarmohammadi H, Kim E, Owen D, Charalel RA, Shenoy-Bhangle A, Burke LM, Mendiratta-Lala M, Atzen S. CT/MRI LI-RADS 2024 Update: Treatment Response Assessment. Radiology 2024; 313:e232408. [PMID: 39530896 PMCID: PMC11605109 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.232408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2023] [Revised: 05/28/2024] [Accepted: 07/17/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024]
Abstract
With the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma, there has been increasing use of local-regional therapy (LRT) to downstage or bridge to transplant, for definitive treatment, and for palliation. The CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response Assessment (TRA) algorithm provides guidance for step-by-step tumor assessment after LRT and standardized reporting. Current evidence suggests that the algorithm performs well in the assessment of tumor response to arterial embolic and loco-ablative therapies and fair when assessing response to radiation-based therapies, with limited data to validate the latter. Both evidence-based and expert-based refinements of the algorithm are needed to improve its diagnostic accuracy after varying types of LRT. This review provides an overview of the challenges and limitations of the LI-RADS TRA algorithm version 2017 and discusses the refinements introduced in the updated 2024 LI-RADS algorithm for CT/MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anum Aslam
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Victoria Chernyak
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Frank H. Miller
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Mustafa Bashir
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Richard Do
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Claude Sirlin
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Robert J. Lewandowski
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Charles Y. Kim
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Ania Zofia Kielar
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Avinash R. Kambadakone
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Hooman Yarmohammadi
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Edward Kim
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Dawn Owen
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Resmi A. Charalel
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Anuradha Shenoy-Bhangle
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Lauren M. Burke
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Mishal Mendiratta-Lala
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| | - Sarah Atzen
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health
System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030 (A.A., M.M.L.);
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, New York, NY
(V.C., R.D., H.Y.); Department of Radiology, Northwestern Medical Center,
Chicago, Ill (F.H.M., R.J.L.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC (M.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San
Diego, San Diego, Calif (C.S., C.Y.K.); Department of Radiology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.Z.K.); Department of Radiology,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (A.R.K., A.S.B.); Department of
Radiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (E.K.); Department of
Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minn (D.O.); Department of
Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (R.A.C.); and Department
of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
(L.M.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Niitsu H, Mizumoto M, Li Y, Nakamura M, Ishida T, Iizumi T, Saito T, Numajiri H, Makishima H, Nakai K, Oshiro Y, Maruo K, Sakurai H. Tumor Response on Diagnostic Imaging after Proton Beam Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:357. [PMID: 38254846 PMCID: PMC10814092 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Revised: 01/10/2024] [Accepted: 01/12/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Follow-up after treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be mostly performed using dynamic CT or MRI, but there is no common evaluation method after radiation therapy. The purpose of this study is to examine factors involved in tumor reduction and local recurrence in patients with HCC treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) and to evaluate HCC shrinkage after PBT. METHODS Cases with only one irradiated lesion or those with two lesions irradiated simultaneously were included in this study. Pre- and post-treatment lesions were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) by measuring the largest diameter. RESULTS The 6-, 12-, and 24-month CR + PR rates after PBT were 33.1%, 57.5%, and 76.9%, respectively, and the reduction rates were 25.1% in the first 6 months, 23.3% at 6-12 months, and 14.5% at 13-24 months. Cases that reached CR/PR at 6 and 12 months had improved OS compared to non-CR/non-PR cases. CONCLUSIONS It is possible that a lesion that reached SD may subsequently transition to PR; it is reasonable to monitor progress with periodic imaging evaluations even after 1 year of treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hikaru Niitsu
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Masashi Mizumoto
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Yinuo Li
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Masatoshi Nakamura
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Toshiki Ishida
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Takashi Iizumi
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Takashi Saito
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Haruko Numajiri
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Hirokazu Makishima
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Kei Nakai
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| | - Yoshiko Oshiro
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8558, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Kazushi Maruo
- Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan;
| | - Hideyuki Sakurai
- Proton Medical Research Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba 305-8576, Ibaraki, Japan; (H.N.); (Y.L.); (M.N.); (T.I.); (T.I.); (T.S.); (H.N.); (H.M.); (K.N.); (Y.O.); (H.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Bordeau K, Michalet M, Dorion V, Keskes A, Valdenaire S, Debuire P, Cantaloube M, Cabaillé M, Draghici R, Ychou M, Assenat E, Jarlier M, Gourgou S, Guiu B, Ursic-Bedoya J, Aillères N, Fenoglietto P, Azria D, Riou O. A prospective registry study of stereotactic magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) for primary liver tumors. Radiother Oncol 2023; 189:109912. [PMID: 37739315 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109912] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2023] [Revised: 09/04/2023] [Accepted: 09/09/2023] [Indexed: 09/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated safe and effective results for primary liver tumors. Magnetic Resonance guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) is an innovative radiotherapy modality for abdominal tumors. The aim of this study is to report on acute and late toxicities and initial oncological results for primary liver tumors treated with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS We prospectively included in our cohort all patients treated by MRgRT for a primary liver tumor at the Montpellier Cancer Institute. The primary endpoint was acute and late toxicities assessed according to CTCAE v 5.0. The mean prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS Between October 2019 and April 2022, MRgRT treated 56 patients for 72 primary liver lesions. No acute or late toxicities of CTCAE grade greater than 2 attributable to radiotherapy were noted during follow-up. No cases of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD), either classical or non-classical, occurred. After a median follow-up of 13.2 months (95% CI [8.8; 15.7]), overall survival was 85.1% (95% CI: [70.8; 92.7]) at 1 year and 74.2% at 18 months (95% CI [52.6; 87.0]). Local control was 98.1% (95% CI: [87.4; 99.7]) and 94.7% (95% CI: [79.5; 98.7]) at 12 and 18 months, respectively. Among the HCC subgroup, no local recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION MRgRT for primary liver tumors is safe without severe adverse events and reach excellent local control. Numerous studies are underway to better assess the value of MRI guidance and adaptive process in these indications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karl Bordeau
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Morgan Michalet
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Valérie Dorion
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Aïcha Keskes
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Simon Valdenaire
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Pierre Debuire
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Marie Cantaloube
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Morgane Cabaillé
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Roxana Draghici
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Marc Ychou
- Medical oncology department, ICM, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - Eric Assenat
- Medical oncology department, CHU St Eloi 34000, Montpellier, France
| | - Marta Jarlier
- Biometrics Unit ICM, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - Sophie Gourgou
- Biometrics Unit ICM, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - Boris Guiu
- Radiology department, CHU St Eloi 34000, Montpellier, France
| | - José Ursic-Bedoya
- Liver Transplantation Unit, Department of Hepatology, Montpellier University Hospital, University of Montpellier, 34295, Montpellier, France
| | - Norbert Aillères
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Pascal Fenoglietto
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - David Azria
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France
| | - Olivier Riou
- University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, Montpellier, France.
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Gharzai LA, Wang C, Tang M, Jackson WC, Maurino C, Cousins MM, Mendiratta-Lala M, Parikh ND, Mayo CS, Haken RKT, Owen D, Cuneo KC, Schipper MJ, Lawrence TS. Efficacy of a Second Course of Radiation for Patients With Metachronous Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:e504-e514. [PMID: 37295727 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.05.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 05/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Liver-directed radiation therapy is an effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but metachronous lesions develop outside the irradiated field in >50% of patients. We hypothesized that irradiation of these new lesions would produce an outcome like that of patients receiving a first course (C1) of treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS We included patients with HCC who received a second course (C2) of radiation therapy >1 month after C1. Toxicity was defined as Child-Pugh score increase ≥2 within 6 months posttreatment (binary model) and as the change in albumin-bilirubin during the year after treatment (longitudinal model). Overall survival (OS) and local failure (LF) were captured at the patient and lesion level, respectively; both were summarized with Kaplan-Meier estimates. Predictors of toxicity and OS were assessed using generalized linear mixed and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS Of 340 patients with HCC, 47 underwent irradiation for metachronous HCC, receiving similar prescription dose in C1/C2. Median follow-up was 17 months after C1 and 15 months after C2. Twenty-two percent of patients experienced toxicity after C1, and 25% experienced toxicity after C2. Worse baseline albumin-bilirubin predicted toxicity in both binary (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.46-3.94; P = .0005) and longitudinal models (P < .005). Two-year LF rate was 11.2% after C1 and 8.3% after C2; tumor dose (hazard ratio [HR], 0.982; 95% CI, 0.969-0.995; P = .007) and tumor size (HR, 1.135; 95% CI, 1.068-1.206; P < .005) predicted LF. Two-year OS was 46.0% after C1 and 42.6% after C2; tumor dose (HR, 0.986; 95% CI, 0.979-0.992; P < .005) and tumor size (HR, 1.049; 95% CI, 1.010-1.088; P = .0124) predicted OS. Reirradiation was not associated with toxicity (P > .7), LF (P = .79), or OS (P = .39). CONCLUSIONS In this largest series in the Western hemisphere, we demonstrate that irradiation for metachronous HCC offers low rates of LF with acceptable toxicity and OS like that of patients receiving a C1. These findings support judicious selection of patients for reirradiation in metachronous HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laila A Gharzai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
| | - Chang Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Ming Tang
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Christopher Maurino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew M Cousins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Neehar D Parikh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Charles S Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Randall K Ten Haken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kyle C Cuneo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew J Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Theodore S Lawrence
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Sharma HK, Kyriakakos C, Jabbour TE, Ward S, Buckstein M, Taouli B, Lewis S. Longitudinal assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma response to stereotactic body radiation using gadoxetate-enhanced MRI: A case series. Eur J Radiol 2023; 167:111077. [PMID: 37688918 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2023] [Revised: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/11/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To describe the longitudinal response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and who underwent liver transplant (LT) using gadoxetate-enhanced MRI. METHODS Five men (median age 61y, range 57-64y) with 6 HCCs treated with SBRT (median dose 50 Gy) who subsequently underwent LT were included in this retrospective study. Patients underwent gadoxetate-enhanced MRI before and after SBRT over a period of 3-18 months. Response was assessed using RECIST1.1, mRECIST, LI-RADS and image subtraction, by 2 observers in consensus. Percentage of pathologic tumor necrosis was evaluated. RESULTS LT was performed 278 days (IQR, 148-418d) after completion of SBRT and 48d after the last MRI. Histopathology demonstrated tumor necrosis of 48 ± 42% (range, 10-100%). Mean tumor size at baseline and last post-treatment MRIs pre-LT were 2.6 ± 0.8 cm and 2.4 ± 0.9 cm. Enhancing tumor component size at baseline MRI and last post-treatment MRI pre-LT were 1.6 ± 0.8 cm and 0.9 ± 1.0 cm. Responses assessed at the last LRI pre-LT were: partial response (PR, n = 3), stable disease (SD, n = 3) using RECIST1.1; complete response (CR, n = 2), partial response (PR, n = 2), stable disease (SD, n = 2) using mRECIST; and LR-TR viable (n = 4), LR-TR non-viable (n = 2) using LI-RADS. At the last MRI pre-LT, per-lesion features of arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE, 4/6), portal venous washout (3/6) and capsule (3/6) were observed. 5/6 lesions displayed a hypointense perilesional halo on hepatobiliary phase with a mean delay of 3.1 months post-SBRT. CONCLUSIONS This case-series showed decreased size, persistent APHE, and incomplete pathologic necrosis in most HCCs treated with SBRT undergoing transplant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Himanshu Kumar Sharma
- Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Christopher Kyriakakos
- Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Tony El Jabbour
- Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Annenberg Building, 15th Floor, 1468 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Stephen Ward
- Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Annenberg Building, 15th Floor, 1468 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Michael Buckstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1184 5th Avenue, First Floor, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Bachir Taouli
- Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA; BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | - Sara Lewis
- Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA; BioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Patel R, Aslam A, Parikh ND, Mervak B, Mubarak E, Higgins L, Lala K, Conner JF, Khaykin V, Bashir M, Do RKG, Burke LMB, Smith EN, Kim CY, Shampain KL, Owen D, Mendiratta-Lala M. Updates on LI-RADS Treatment Response Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Focusing on MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2023; 57:1641-1654. [PMID: 36872608 PMCID: PMC11078141 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2022] [Revised: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 03/07/2023] Open
Abstract
As the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and subsequent treatments with liver-directed therapies rise, the complexity of assessing lesion response has also increased. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LI-RADS TRA) was created to standardize the assessment of response after locoregional therapy (LRT) on contrast-enhanced CT or MRI. Originally created based on expert opinion, these guidelines are currently undergoing revision based on emerging evidence. While many studies support the use of LR-TRA for evaluation of HCC response after thermal ablation and intra-arterial embolic therapy, data suggest a need for refinements to improve assessment after radiation therapy. In this manuscript, we review expected MR imaging findings after different forms of LRT, clarify how to apply the current LI-RADS TRA by type of LRT, explore emerging literature on LI-RADS TRA, and highlight future updates to the algorithm. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richa Patel
- Department of Radiology, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Anum Aslam
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Neehar D Parikh
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Benjamin Mervak
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Eman Mubarak
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Lily Higgins
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Kayli Lala
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Jack F Conner
- Department of Radiology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, USA
| | - Valerie Khaykin
- Department of Radiology and Hepatology, University of Michigan Medicine, Michigan, USA
| | - Mustafa Bashir
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Richard Kinh Gian Do
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Lauren M B Burke
- Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Elainea N Smith
- Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Charles Y Kim
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kimberly L Shampain
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Cox DRA, Chung W, Grace J, Wong D, Kutaiba N, Ranatunga D, Khor R, Perini MV, Fink M, Jones R, Goodwin M, Dobrovic A, Testro A, Muralidharan V. Evaluating treatment response following locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A review of the available serological and radiological tools for assessment. JGH Open 2023; 7:249-260. [PMID: 37125252 PMCID: PMC10134770 DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Revised: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2023]
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive primary malignancy of the liver and is the third most common cause of cancer-related global mortality. There has been a steady increase in treatment options for HCC in recent years, including innovations in both curative and non-curative therapies. These advances have brought new challenges and necessary improvements in strategies of disease monitoring, to allow early detection of HCC recurrence. Current serological and radiological strategies for post-treatment monitoring and prognostication and their limitations will be discussed and evaluated in this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel R A Cox
- Department of Surgery (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery UnitAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - William Chung
- Department of Medicine (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Josephine Grace
- Department of Medicine (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Darren Wong
- Department of Medicine (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Numan Kutaiba
- Department of RadiologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | | | - Richard Khor
- Department of Radiation OncologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- School of Molecular Sciences, La Trobe UniversityMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Marcos V Perini
- Department of Surgery (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery UnitAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Michael Fink
- Department of Surgery (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery UnitAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Robert Jones
- Department of Surgery (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery UnitAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Mark Goodwin
- Department of RadiologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Alex Dobrovic
- Department of Surgery (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Adam Testro
- Department of Medicine (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Liver Transplant Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Vijayaragavan Muralidharan
- Department of Surgery (Austin Precinct)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery UnitAustin HealthMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Mai Z, Yang Q, Xu J, Xie H, Ban X, Xu G, Zhang R. Response evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy: magnetic resonance imaging findings. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2023; 48:1995-2007. [PMID: 36939911 PMCID: PMC10167191 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-03827-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Revised: 01/17/2023] [Accepted: 01/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/21/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To summarize the magnetic resonance imaging manifestations of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with and without progression after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and evaluate the treatment effect using the modified Liver Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). METHODS Between January 2015 and December 2020, 102 patients with SBRT-treated HCC were included. Tumor size, signal intensity, and enhancement patterns at each follow-up period were analyzed. Three different patterns of enhancement: APHE and wash-out, non-enhancement, and delayed enhancement. For modified LI-RADS, delayed enhancement with no size increase were considered to be a "treatment-specific expected enhancement pattern" for LR-TR non-viable. RESULTS Patients were divided into two groups: without (n = 96) and with local progression (n = 6). Among patients without local progression, APHE and wash-out pattern demonstrated conversion to the delayed enhancement (71.9%) and non-enhancement (20.8%) patterns, with decreased signal intensity on T1WI(92.9%) and DWI(99%), increased signal intensity on T1WI (99%), and decreased size. The signal intensity and enhancement patterns stabilized after 6-9 months. Six cases with progression exhibited tumor growth, APHE and wash-out, and increased signal intensity on T2WI/DWI. Based on the modified LI-RADS criteria, 74% and 95% showed LR-TR-nonviable in 3 and 12 months post-SBRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS After SBRT, the signal intensity and enhancement patterns of HCCs showed a temporal evolution. Tumor growth, APHE and wash-out, and increased signal intensity on T2WI/DWI indicates tumor progression. Modified LI-RADS criteria showed good performance in evaluating nonviable lesions after SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhijun Mai
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Qiuxia Yang
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Jiahui Xu
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Hui Xie
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Xiaohua Ban
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Guixiao Xu
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Rong Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, No.651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Hui C, Baclay R, Lau B, von Eyben R, Vitzthum L, Pollom E, Chang DT. Outcomes and Imaging Analysis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:e139-e148. [PMID: 36868725 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Revised: 08/15/2022] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although arterial phase enhancement is commonly used to evaluate treatment response for hepatocellular carcinoma, it may not accurately describe response for lesions treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We aimed to describe the post-SBRT imaging findings to better inform the optimal timing of salvage therapy after SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS We retrospectively reviewed patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with SBRT from 2006 to 2021 at a single institution with available imaging showing lesions with characteristic arterial enhancement and portal venous washout. Patients were then stratified into 3 groups based on treatment: (1) concurrent SBRT and transarterial chemoembolization, (2) SBRT only, and (3) SBRT followed by early salvage therapy due to persistent enhancement. Overall survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method, and cumulative incidences were calculated with competing risk analysis. RESULTS We included 82 lesions in 73 patients. The median follow-up time was 22.3 months (range, 2.2-88.1 months). The median time to overall survival was 43.7 months (95% confidence interval, 28.1-57.6 months) and median progression-free survival was 10.5 months (95% confidence interval, 7.2-14.0 months). There were 10 (12.2%) lesions that experienced local progression and there was no difference in rates of local progression between the 3 groups (P = .32). In the SBRT-only group, the median time to resolution of arterial enhancement and washout was 5.3 months (range, 1.6-23.7 months). At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, 82%, 41%, 13%, and 8% of lesions, respectively, continued to show arterial hyperenhancement. CONCLUSIONS Tumors treated with SBRT may continue to exhibit persistence of arterial hyperenhancement. Without an increase in size of enhancement, continued surveillance may be appropriate for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caressa Hui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Richel Baclay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Rie von Eyben
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lucas Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Erqi Pollom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Fujita N, Kanogawa N, Makishima H, Ogasawara S, Maruta S, Iino Y, Shiko Y, Kanzaki H, Koroki K, Kobayashi K, Kiyono S, Nakamura M, Kondo T, Nakamoto S, Chiba T, Wakatsuki M, Itobayashi E, Obu M, Koma Y, Azemoto R, Kawasaki Y, Kato J, Tsuji H, Kato N. Carbon-ion radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation as initial treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res 2022; 52:1060-1071. [PMID: 35951438 DOI: 10.1111/hepr.13827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2021] [Revised: 08/01/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
AIM Carbon-ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) has shown potential as a curative treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no reports have compared the effectiveness of C-ion RT and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between C-ion RT and RFA for patients with early-stage HCC. METHODS Medical records of consecutive patients with HCC (single lesion ≤5 cm or two to three lesions ≤3 cm) who received either C-ion RT or RFA as initial treatment were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for clinical factors between both groups. RESULTS A total of 560 patients were included, among whom 69 and 491 received C-ion RT and RFA, respectively. After PSM (C-ion RT, 54 patients; RFA, 95 patients), both groups were well balanced. Carbon-ion radiotherapy had significantly lower cumulative intrasubsegmental recurrence rate after PSM compared to RFA (p = 0.004) (2-year, 12.6% vs. 31.7%; 5-year, 15.5% vs. 49.6%, respectively). However, no significant difference in cumulative local recurrence rate, stage progression-free survival, or overall survival (OS) was observed between both groups. In the RFA group, 6 of 491 patients (1.2%) showed grade 3 adverse events, whereas no grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in the C-ion RT group. CONCLUSION Carbon-ion radiotherapy provided a lower cumulative intrasubsegmental recurrence rate, but a comparable cumulative local recurrence rate, stage progression-free survival, and OS compared to RFA. Thus, C-ion RT appears to be one of the effective treatment options for early-stage HCC when RFA is deemed not indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naoto Fujita
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Naoya Kanogawa
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Hirokazu Makishima
- National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, QST Hospital, Chiba, Japan.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Sadahisa Ogasawara
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.,Translational Research and Development Center, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Susumu Maruta
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
| | - Yotaro Iino
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kisarazu, Japan
| | - Yuki Shiko
- Biostatistics Section, Clinical Research Center, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Hiroaki Kanzaki
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Keisuke Koroki
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Kazufumi Kobayashi
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.,Translational Research and Development Center, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Soichiro Kiyono
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Masato Nakamura
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Takayuki Kondo
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Shingo Nakamoto
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Tetsuhiro Chiba
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Masaru Wakatsuki
- National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, QST Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Ei Itobayashi
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan
| | - Masamichi Obu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kisarazu, Japan
| | - Yoshihiro Koma
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kisarazu, Japan
| | - Ryosaku Azemoto
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kisarazu, Japan
| | - Yohei Kawasaki
- Biostatistics Section, Clinical Research Center, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Jun Kato
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Tsuji
- National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, QST Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Naoya Kato
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Tadimalla S, Wang W, Haworth A. Role of Functional MRI in Liver SBRT: Current Use and Future Directions. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14235860. [PMID: 36497342 PMCID: PMC9739660 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14235860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 11/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment for liver cancers whereby large doses of radiation can be delivered precisely to target lesions in 3-5 fractions. The target dose is limited by the dose that can be safely delivered to the non-tumour liver, which depends on the baseline liver functional reserve. Current liver SBRT guidelines assume uniform liver function in the non-tumour liver. However, the assumption of uniform liver function is false in liver disease due to the presence of cirrhosis, damage due to previous chemo- or ablative therapies or irradiation, and fatty liver disease. Anatomical information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used for SBRT planning. While its current use is limited to the identification of target location and size, functional MRI techniques also offer the ability to quantify and spatially map liver tissue microstructure and function. This review summarises and discusses the advantages offered by functional MRI methods for SBRT treatment planning and the potential for adaptive SBRT workflows.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sirisha Tadimalla
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
- Correspondence:
| | - Wei Wang
- Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Sydney West Radiation Oncology Network, Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia
| | - Annette Haworth
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Navin PJ, Olson MC, Mendiratta-Lala M, Hallemeier CL, Torbenson MS, Venkatesh SK. Imaging Features in the Liver after Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Radiographics 2022; 42:2131-2148. [PMID: 36240077 DOI: 10.1148/rg.220084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Historically, radiation therapy was not considered in treatment of liver tumors owing to the risk of radiation-induced liver disease. However, development of highly conformed radiation treatments such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has increased use of radiation therapy in the liver. SBRT is indicated in treatment of primary and metastatic liver tumors with outcomes comparable to those of other local therapies, especially in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. After SBRT, imaging features of the tumor and surrounding background hepatic parenchyma demonstrate a predictable pattern immediately after treatment and during follow-up. The goals of SBRT are to deliver a lethal radiation dose to the targeted liver tumor and to minimize radiation dose to normal liver parenchyma and other adjacent organs. Evaluation of tumor response after SBRT centers on changes in size and enhancement; however, these changes are often delayed secondary to the underlying physiologic effects of radiation. Knowledge of the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of SBRT should allow better understanding of the typical imaging features in detection of tumor response and avoid misinterpretation from common pitfalls and atypical imaging findings. Imaging features of radiation-induced change in the surrounding liver parenchyma are characterized by a focal liver reaction that can potentially be mistaken for no response or recurrence of tumor. Knowledge of the pattern and chronology of this phenomenon may allay any uncertainty in assessment of tumor response. Other pitfalls related to fiducial marker placement or combination therapies are important to recognize. The authors review the basic principles of SBRT and illustrate post-SBRT imaging features of treated liver tumors and adjacent liver parenchyma with a focus on avoiding pitfalls in imaging evaluation of response. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick J Navin
- From the Departments of Radiology (P.J.N., M.C.O., S.K.V.), Radiation Oncology (C.L.H.), and Pathology (M.S.T.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; and Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.M.L.)
| | - Michael C Olson
- From the Departments of Radiology (P.J.N., M.C.O., S.K.V.), Radiation Oncology (C.L.H.), and Pathology (M.S.T.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; and Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.M.L.)
| | - Mishal Mendiratta-Lala
- From the Departments of Radiology (P.J.N., M.C.O., S.K.V.), Radiation Oncology (C.L.H.), and Pathology (M.S.T.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; and Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.M.L.)
| | - Christopher L Hallemeier
- From the Departments of Radiology (P.J.N., M.C.O., S.K.V.), Radiation Oncology (C.L.H.), and Pathology (M.S.T.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; and Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.M.L.)
| | - Michael S Torbenson
- From the Departments of Radiology (P.J.N., M.C.O., S.K.V.), Radiation Oncology (C.L.H.), and Pathology (M.S.T.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; and Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.M.L.)
| | - Sudhakar K Venkatesh
- From the Departments of Radiology (P.J.N., M.C.O., S.K.V.), Radiation Oncology (C.L.H.), and Pathology (M.S.T.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; and Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (M.M.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Serafini A, Ruggeri V, Inchingolo R, Gatti M, Guarneri A, Maino C, Ippolito D, Grazioli L, Ricardi U, Faletti R. Liver magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of response to treatment after stereotactic body radiation therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol 2022; 14:1790-1803. [PMID: 36185716 PMCID: PMC9521449 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i9.1790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Revised: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used, its application has not yet been regulated by the main international guidelines, leaving the decision to multidisciplinary teams. AIM To assess magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with SBRT, highlighting the efficacy of the treatment and the main aspects of the lesion before and after the procedure. METHODS As part of a retrospective study, 49 patients who underwent SBRT for HCC between January 2013 and November 2019 were recruited. Each patient underwent a pre-treatment MRI examination with a hepatospecific contrast agent and a similar follow-up examination within 6 mo of therapy. In addition, 22 patients underwent a second follow-up examination after the first 6 mo. The following characteristics were analysed: Features analysed compared to pre-treatment MRI examination, presence or absence of infield and outfield progression, ring-like enhancement, signal hyperintensity in T2-weighted sequences in the perilesional parenchyma, capsular retraction, and "band" signal hypointensity in T1-weighted gradient echo fat saturated sequences obtained during hepatobiliary excretion. RESULTS Signal hyperintensity in the T2-weighted sequences showed a statistically significant reduction in the number of lesions at the post-SBRT first control (P = 0.0006). Signal hyperintensity in diffusion-weighted imaging-weighted sequences was decreased at MRI first control (P < 0.0001). A statistically significant increase of apparent diffusion coefficient values from a median of 1.01 to 1.38 at the first post-control was found (P < 0.0001). Capsular retraction was increased at the late evaluation (P = 0.006). Band-like signal hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase was present in 94% at the late control (P = 0.006). The study of the risk of outfield progression vs infield progression revealed a hazard ratio of 9. CONCLUSION The efficacy of SBRT should be evaluated not in the first 6 mo, but at least 9 mo post-SBRT, when infield progression persists at very low rates while the risk of outfield progression increases significantly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Valeria Ruggeri
- Department of Radiology, University of Brescia, Brescia 25123, Italy
| | - Riccardo Inchingolo
- Interventional Radiology Unit, Miulli Hospital, Acquaviva Delle Fonti 70124, Italy
| | - Marco Gatti
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| | - Alessia Guarneri
- Department of Oncology-Radiation Oncology, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| | - Cesare Maino
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza 20900, Italy
| | - Davide Ippolito
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza 20900, Italy
| | - Luigi Grazioli
- Department of Radiology, Spedali Civili, University of Brescia, Brescia 25023, Italy
| | - Umberto Ricardi
- Department of Oncology-Radiation Oncology, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| | - Riccardo Faletti
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Gatti M, Maino C, Darvizeh F, Serafini A, Tricarico E, Guarneri A, Inchingolo R, Ippolito D, Ricardi U, Fonio P, Faletti R. Role of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28:3116-3131. [PMID: 36051340 PMCID: PMC9331537 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i26.3116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Revised: 04/25/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Locoregional treatments, as alternatives to surgery, play a key role in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables a multiparametric assessment, going beyond the traditional dynamic computed tomography approach. Moreover, the use of hepatobiliary agents can improve diagnostic accuracy and are becoming important in the diagnosis and follow-up of HCC. However, the main challenge is to quickly identify classical responses to loco-regional treatments in order to determine the most suitable management strategy for each patient. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the most common and uncommon liver MRI findings in patients who underwent loco-regional treatments for HCC, with a special focus on ablative therapies (radiofrequency, microwaves and cryoablation), trans-arterial chemoembolization, trans-arterial radio-embolization and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy techniques, considering the usefulness of gadoxetate disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) contrast agent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Gatti
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| | - Cesare Maino
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza 20900, Italy
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Ospedale San Gerardo, Monza 20900, Italy
| | - Fatemeh Darvizeh
- School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan 20121, Italy
| | | | - Eleonora Tricarico
- Department of Radiology, "F. Perinei" Hospital, Altamura (BA) 70022, Italy
| | | | - Riccardo Inchingolo
- Interventional Radiology Unit, “F. Miulli” Regional General Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti (BA) 70021, Italy
| | - Davide Ippolito
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza 20900, Italy
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Ospedale San Gerardo, Monza 20900, Italy
| | - Umberto Ricardi
- Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| | - Paolo Fonio
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| | - Riccardo Faletti
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin 10126, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Alnammi M, Wortman J, Therrien J, Afnan J. MRI features of treated hepatocellular carcinoma following locoregional therapy: a pictorial review. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY (NEW YORK) 2022; 47:2299-2313. [PMID: 35524803 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03526-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2022] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide and within the United States. Liver transplant or partial liver resection is the definitive treatment of choice for HCC; however, the majority of cases are detected in advanced stages due to its early-stage asymptomatic nature, often precluding surgical treatment. Locoregional therapy plays an essential role in HCC management, including curative intent, as a bridge to transplant, or in some cases palliative therapy. Radiologists play a critical role in assessing tumor response following treatment to guide further management that may potentially impact transplantation eligibility; therefore, it is important for radiologists to have an understanding of different locoregional therapies and the variations of imaging response to different therapies. In this review article, we outline the imaging response to ablative therapy (AT), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We will also briefly discuss the basic concepts of these locoregional therapies. This review focuses on the imaging features following locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma following AT, TACE, SIRT, and SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohanned Alnammi
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA, 01805, USA
| | - Jeremy Wortman
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA, 01805, USA
| | - Jaclyn Therrien
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA, 01805, USA
| | - Jalil Afnan
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA, 01805, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Immunotherapy-Based Treatments of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022; 219:533-546. [PMID: 35506555 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.22.27633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
The advent of immunotherapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has changed the treatment landscape and conferred survival benefit for patients with advanced HCC who typically have a very poor prognosis. The most pronounced improvements in response, as documented by standardized response criteria based on CT or MRI, have been achieved when immunotherapy is combined with other systemic or locoregional therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatments result in unique patterns on CT and MRI that challenge the application of conventional response criteria such as RECIST, modified RECIST, and European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria. Thus, newer criteria have been developed to gauge therapy response or disease progression for patients on immunotherapy, including immune-related RECIST (iRECIST) and immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST), though these remain unvalidated. In this review, we describe the current landscape of immunotherapeutic agents used for HCC, summarize results of published studies, review pathobiological mechanisms that provide a rationale for the use of these agents, and report on the status of response assessment for immunotherapy, either alone or in combination with other treatment options. Finally, consensus statements are provided to inform radiologists on essential considerations in the era of a rapidly changing treatment paradigm for patients with HCC.
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Lee S, Jung J, Park JH, Kim SY, Choi J, Lee D, Shim JH, Kim KM, Lim YS, Lee HC, Park HH, Kim JH, Yoon SM. Stereotactic body radiation therapy as a salvage treatment for single viable hepatocellular carcinoma at the site of incomplete transarterial chemoembolization: a retrospective analysis of 302 patients. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:175. [PMID: 35172769 PMCID: PMC8848650 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09263-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 01/28/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who received stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for single viable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at the site of incomplete transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS Patients treated with SBRT for single viable HCC after incomplete TACE between 2012 and 2017 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, South Korea) were included. Incomplete TACE was defined as (1) evidence of viable HCC at the site of TACE on follow-up dynamic computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging following one or more consecutive TACEs, (2) no definite tumor staining on superselective hepatic angiogram, or (3) no definite iodized oil uptake on post-embolization angiogram or CT. Doses of 10-15 Gy per fraction were given over 3-4 consecutive days. The primary outcome was local control rate at 3 years and secondary outcome included tumor response, overall survival rate, out-of-field intrahepatic recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and treatment-related toxicities. Treatment-related adverse events were evaluated according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events, version 4.03. RESULTS A total of 302 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up duration was 32.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 23.6-41.7) and the median tumor size was 2.0 cm (range, 0.7-6.9). The local control (LC) and overall survival rates at 3 years were 91.2 and 72.7%, respectively. 95.4% of the tumors reached complete response (CR) during the entire follow-up period (anyCR). The median interval from SBRT to anyCR was 3.4 months (IQR, 1.9-4.7), and 39.9 and 83.3% of the lesions reached CR at 3- and 6-months after SBRT, respectively. Radiation-induced liver disease was observed in 8 (2.6%) patients. No patients experienced gastroduodenal bleeding within the radiation field. CONCLUSION SBRT could be considered a feasible salvage treatment option for HCC after incomplete TACE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sumin Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| | - Jinhong Jung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.
| | - Jin-Hong Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| | - So Yeon Kim
- Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jonggi Choi
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Danbi Lee
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ju Hyun Shim
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Kang Mo Kim
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Young-Suk Lim
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Han Chu Lee
- Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hee Hyun Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| | - Jong Hoon Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| | - Sang Min Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Kim KE, Sinn DH, Choi MS, Kim H. Outcomes of patients presenting with elevated tumor marker levels but negative gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI after a complete response to hepatocellular carcinoma treatment. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0262750. [PMID: 35085305 PMCID: PMC8794219 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients usually achieve a complete response after treatment. This study was aimed to assess the clinical outcome of HCC patients who had achieved a complete response but later presented with elevated tumor marker levels without an identifiable recurrent tumor on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcome of 58 HCC treated patients who had achieved a complete response but later was referred to our institution’s multidisciplinary tumor board for a clinically suspected hidden HCC recurrence based on elevated tumor marker levels but negative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. The imaging studies, tumor markers, and clinical information were reviewed. The total follow-up period was at least 15 months after the initial negative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Results Follow-up imaging studies detected an HCC lesion in 89.7% (n = 52/58) of the patients within the study period, and approximately half of the tumors (46.2%, n = 24/52) developed within 3 months. The most frequent site of recurrence was the liver (86.5%; n = 45/52), but extra-hepatic metastasis was also common (19.2%; n = 10/52). In 5.8% (n = 3/52), HCC reoccurred in the combined form of intra-hepatic and extra-hepatic recurrence. Extra-hepatic metastasis alone occurred in 13.5% (n = 7/52) of patients. Conclusions HCC frequently recurred within a short interval in patients who achieved a complete response to treatment in the presence of increased tumor marker levels, even if gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was negative. Under such circumstances, we suggest a short-term follow-up including, but not limited to, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI along with systemic evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ka Eun Kim
- Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Dong Hyun Sinn
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Moon Seok Choi
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Honsoul Kim
- Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Department of Health Science and Technology, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Ueno M, Takabatake H, Itasaka S, Kayahara T, Morimoto Y, Yamamoto H, Mizuno M. Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus radiofrequency ablation for single small hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity-score matching analysis of their impact on liver function and clinical outcomes. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 12:2334-2344. [PMID: 34790396 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-21-356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 09/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has high efficacy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and is an accepted alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). However, SBRT for HCC may cause subacute liver injury leading to negative clinical outcomes. In this study, we compared changes of liver function and prognosis after SBRT or RFA in patients with single, small HCC by using a propensity-score matching analysis. Methods We reviewed medical records of 140 patients with single ≤3 cm HCC treated with SBRT or RFA at Kurashiki Central Hospital between January 2014 and February 2019. Changes of albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score, local recurrence, and overall survival were compared between the propensity-score matched groups (31 patients treated with SBRT and 62 treated with RFA). Results The ALBI score increased modestly but significantly after SBRT, while it was unchanged in the RFA group; the intergroup difference was statistically significant (P=0.004). No local recurrence was identified in the SBRT group, whereas the cumulative recurrence incidence was 9.7% in the RFA group (P=0.023). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups (hazard ratio: 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-2.89, P=0.401). Conclusions SBRT had modestly negative impact on liver function but with appraisable local control of HCC. Our findings should contribute to the selection of this modality for treatment of single, small HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masayuki Ueno
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Takabatake
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| | - Satoshi Itasaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| | - Takahisa Kayahara
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| | - Youichi Morimoto
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Yamamoto
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| | - Motowo Mizuno
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Incorporation of Ancillary MRI Features into the LI-RADS Treatment Response Algorithm: Impact on Diagnostic Performance After Locoregional Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 218:484-493. [PMID: 34585608 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.21.26677] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Background: The LI-RADS treatment response algorithm may lack sufficient sensitivity for viable tumor after locoregional treatment (LRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Objective: To evaluate the impact of incorporation of ancillary MRI features on the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS treatment response algorithm after LRT for HCC. Methods: This retrospective study included 141 patients (114 men, 27 women; median age, 56 years) who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI following LRT for HCC between October 2005 and January 2020 and subsequent liver surgery. Two readers assessed lesions for LI-RADS features of viability and for ancillary features [transitional phase (TP) hypointensity, hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity, DWI hyperintensity or low ADC, mild-to-moderate T2 hyperintensity]. Interobserver agreement was assessed before reaching consensus. Significant ancillary features were identified using random forest analysis. Impact of incorporation of significant ancillary features on diagnostic performance for incomplete pathologic necrosis (IPN, pathologically viable tumor >0 mm) was assessed using McNemar tests. Results: Complete pathologic necrosis (CPN) was observed in 88/181 (48.6%) lesions. Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (κ=0.92-0.97) for LI-RADS features of viability and substantial to almost perfect (κ=0.73-0.94) for ancillary features. Random forest analysis identified TP hypointensity (present in 8.0%, 25.0%, and 75.3% of lesions with CPN, viable tumor <10 mm, and viable tumor ≥10 mm, respectively) and HBP hypointensity (9.2%, 25.0%, and 74.0%, respectively) as significant ancillary features. For detecting IPN, LR-TR Viable OR LR-TR Equivocal had higher sensitivity (71.0% vs 57.0%, P = .001), but lower specificity (86.4% vs 94.3%, P = .02) than LR-TR Viable. However, LR-TR Viable OR LR-TR Equivocal and TP hypointensity showed higher sensitivity (64.5% vs 57.0%, P = .02) than LR-TR Viable, without significantly different specificity (90.9% vs 94.3%, P = .25). LR-TR Viable OR LR-TR Equivocal and HBP hypointensity also showed higher sensitivity (65.6% vs 57.0%, P = .01) than LR-TR Viable, without significantly different specificity (90.8% vs. 94.3%, P = .25). Conclusion: TP hypointensity and HBP hypointensity increase sensitivity of LI-RADS treatment response algorithm for viable tumor without lowering specificity. Clinical Impact: The two identified ancillary features may improve tumor viability assessment and planning of additional therapies after LRT for HCC.
Collapse
|
|
23
|
LI-RADS treatment response algorithm for detecting incomplete necrosis in hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient data. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46:3717-3728. [PMID: 34027566 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03122-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2021] [Revised: 05/03/2021] [Accepted: 05/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient data to investigate the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response (TR) algorithm for detecting incomplete necrosis on pathology. METHODS PubMed and EMBASE were searched from Jan 1, 2017 until October 14, 2020. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS TR algorithm on CT or MRI for detecting incomplete necrosis on pathology as a reference standard were included. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed for locoregional treatment (LRT) type and imaging modality. RESULTS Six studies (393 patients, 534 lesions) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.69) and specificity was 0.91 (95%CI 0.84-0.96). Pooled sensitivity was highest using arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) (0.67 [95%CI 0.51-0.81]), followed by washout (0.43 [95%CI 0.26-0.62]) and enhancement similar to pretreatment (0.24 [95%CI 0.15-0.36]). Among lesions with incomplete necrosis, 2% (95%CI 0.00-0.05) manifested as washout but no APHE; 0% (95% CI 0.00-0.02) as enhancement similar to pretreatment without both APHE and washout. Pooled sensitivity was lower after ablation than embolization (0.42 [95%CI, 0.28-0.57] vs. 0.65 [95%CI, 0.53-0.77], p = 0.033). MRI and CT were comparable (p = 0.783 and 0.290 for sensitivity and specificity). CONCLUSIONS LI-RADS TR algorithm shows moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting incomplete necrosis after LRT. APHE is the dominant criterion, a washout contributes to small but meaningful extent, while the contribution of enhancement similar to pretreatment may be negligible. LRT type may affect performance of the algorithm.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Shampain KL, Hackett CE, Towfighi S, Aslam A, Masch WR, Harris AC, Chang SD, Khanna K, Mendiratta V, Gabr AM, Owen D, Mendiratta-Lala M. SBRT for HCC: Overview of technique and treatment response assessment. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46:3615-3624. [PMID: 33963419 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03107-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2021] [Revised: 04/20/2021] [Accepted: 04/24/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging locoregional treatment (LRT) modality used in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The decision to treat HCC with LRT is evaluated in a multidisciplinary setting, and the specific LRT chosen depends on the treatment intent, such as bridge-to-transplant, down-staging to transplant, definitive/curative treatment, and/or palliation, as well as underlying patient clinical factors. Accurate assessment of treatment response is necessary in order to guide clinical management in these patients. Patients who undergo LRT need continuous imaging evaluation to assess treatment response and to evaluate for recurrence. Thus, an accurate understanding of expected post-SBRT imaging findings is critical to avoid misinterpreting normal post-treatment changes as local progression or viable tumor. SBRT-treated HCC demonstrates unique imaging findings that differ from HCC treated with other forms of LRT. In particular, SBRT-treated HCC can demonstrate persistent APHE and washout on short-term follow-up imaging. This brief review summarizes current evidence for the use of SBRT for HCC, including patient population, SBRT technique and procedure, tumor response assessment on contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging with expected findings, and pitfalls in treatment response evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sohrab Towfighi
- Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Anum Aslam
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - William R Masch
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Alison C Harris
- Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Silvia D Chang
- Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kanika Khanna
- Department of Hepatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA
| | | | - Ahmed M Gabr
- Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Kampalath R, Tran-Harding K, Do RKG, Mendiratta-Lala M, Yaghmai V. Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment Response After Locoregional Therapy. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2021; 29:389-403. [PMID: 34243925 DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2021.05.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Locoregional therapy (LRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma can be used alone or with other treatment modalities to reduce rates of progression, improve survival, or act as a bridge to cure. As the use of LRT expands, so too has the need for systems to evaluate treatment response, such as the World Health Organization and modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors systems and more recently, the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (TRA). Early validation results for LI-RADS TRA have been promising, and as research accrues, the TRA is expected to evolve in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rony Kampalath
- Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA 92868, USA
| | - Karen Tran-Harding
- Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA 92868, USA
| | - Richard K G Do
- Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Mishal Mendiratta-Lala
- Radiology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030, USA
| | - Vahid Yaghmai
- University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA 92868, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
M Cunha G, Fowler KJ, Roudenko A, Taouli B, Fung AW, Elsayes KM, Marks RM, Cruite I, Horvat N, Chernyak V, Sirlin CB, Tang A. How to Use LI-RADS to Report Liver CT and MRI Observations. Radiographics 2021; 41:1352-1367. [PMID: 34297631 DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021200205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Primary liver cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprising the vast majority of primary liver malignancies. Imaging plays a central role in HCC diagnosis and management. As a result, the content and structure of radiology reports are of utmost importance in guiding clinical management. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) provides guidance for standardized reporting of liver observations in patients who are at risk for HCC. LI-RADS standardized reporting intends to inform patient treatment and facilitate multidisciplinary communication and decisions, taking into consideration individual clinical factors. Depending on the context, observations may be reported individually, in aggregate, or as a combination of both. LI-RADS provides two templates for reporting liver observations: in a single continuous paragraph or in a structured format with keywords and imaging findings. The authors clarify terminology that is pertinent to reporting, highlight the benefits of structured reports, discuss the applicability of LI-RADS for liver CT and MRI, review the elements of a standardized LI-RADS report, provide guidance on the description of LI-RADS observations exemplified with two case-based reporting templates, illustrate relevant imaging findings and components to be included when reporting specific clinical scenarios, and discuss future directions. An invited commentary by Yano is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. Work of the U.S. Government published under an exclusive license with the RSNA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guilherme M Cunha
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Kathryn J Fowler
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Alexandra Roudenko
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Bachir Taouli
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Alice W Fung
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Khaled M Elsayes
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Robert M Marks
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Irene Cruite
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Natally Horvat
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Victoria Chernyak
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - Claude B Sirlin
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| | - An Tang
- From the Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, Liver Imaging Group, La Jolla, Calif (G.M.C., K.J.F., C.B.S.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Moura Cunha G, Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Sirlin CB. Up-to-Date Role of CT/MRI LI-RADS in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2021; 8:513-527. [PMID: 34104640 PMCID: PMC8180267 DOI: 10.2147/jhc.s268288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and a major healthcare burden in most societies. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) play a pivotal role in the medical care of patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). When stringent imaging criteria are fulfilled, CT and MRI allow for diagnosis, staging, and assessment of response to treatment, without the need for invasive workup, and can inform clinical decision making. Owing to the central role of these imaging modalities in HCC management, standardization is essential to facilitate proper imaging technique, accurate interpretation, and clear communication among all stakeholders in both the clinical practice and research settings. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system that provides standardization across the continuum of HCC imaging, including ordinal probabilistic approach for reporting that directs individualized management. This review discusses the up-to-date role of CT and MRI in HCC imaging from the LI-RADS perspective. It also provides a glimpse into the future by discussing how advances in knowledge and technology are likely to enrich the LI-RADS approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guilherme Moura Cunha
- Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Victoria Chernyak
- Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kathryn J Fowler
- Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Claude B Sirlin
- Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Bajaj G, Sundaram K, Jambhekar K, Ram R. Imaging After Locoregional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Emphasis on LIRADS Treatment Response Assessment Criteria. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2021; 42:318-331. [PMID: 34130846 DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2021.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Radiologists play an essential role in assessing hepatocellular carcinoma treatment response and help guide further clinical management of patients. Interpretation of treatment response after locoregional therapy is challenging. The post-treatment imaging findings vary and depend on the type of treatment, the degree of treatment response, time interval after treatment and several other factors. Given the widespread use of local-regional therapies, understanding the appearance of treated lesions has become crucial to allow for a more accurate interpretation of post-treatment imaging. Several response criteria including the recently introduced Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (TRA) are currently used to assess treatment response. This review article describes the imaging assessment of HCC treatment response after several locoregional therapies using various response assessment criteria, emphasizing the LI-RADS treatment algorithm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gitanjali Bajaj
- Associate professor of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.
| | - Karthik Sundaram
- Assistant Professor of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Kedar Jambhekar
- Professor of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, AR
| | - Roopa Ram
- Associate professor of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR
| |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Mastrocostas K, Fischer S, Munoz-Schuffenegger P, Jang HJ, Dawson LA, Liu ZA, Sapisochin G, Kim TK. Radiological tumor response and histopathological correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy as a bridge to liver transplantation. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46:1572-1585. [PMID: 33074426 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02821-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2020] [Revised: 10/04/2020] [Accepted: 10/10/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the imaging findings of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a bridging therapy prior to liver transplantation (LT), with histopathological correlation at liver explant. METHODS Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study. The study subjects included 25 HCC lesions in 23 patients (20 males; median age, 60 years; range 41-68 years) who underwent LT after SBRT for HCC as a bridge to LT in a single tertiary referral institution over a 12-year period. Target HCC lesions were assessed for imaging biomarkers on contrast-enhanced CT or MRI including change in HCC diameter and assessment of percentage necrosis. The radiologic response at pre-LT imaging was compared to explant pathology. RESULTS There was a positive correlation between the tumor size (Spearman's ρ = 0.86; p < 0.001) and percentage necrosis (p < 0.001) on Pre-LT imaging and those on pathology. Partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1 were seen in 8 (32%), 15 (60%), and 2 (8%) lesions on pre-LT imaging, respectively. Of the 15 lesions with radiologic SD, 5/15 (33%) showed necrosis of more than 50% on post-SBRT imaging, while 9/15 (60%) showed necrosis of more than 50% at explant pathologic analysis, showing a tendency to underestimate the degree of tumor necrosis compared to pathology. CONCLUSION RECIST 1.1 radiologic response criteria may underestimate the response to treatment with SBRT, and radiologic estimation of percent tumor necrosis was more closely correlated with pathologic percent tumor necrosis.
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Funaoka A, Numata K, Takeda A, Saigusa Y, Tsurugai Y, Nihonmatsu H, Chuma M, Fukuda H, Okada M, Nakano M, Maeda S. Use of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound with Sonazoid for Evaluating the Radiotherapy Efficacy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:diagnostics11030486. [PMID: 33803373 PMCID: PMC7998355 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/05/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy is one of the available curative therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigate the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid (SCEUS) in evaluating the efficacy of radiotherapy for HCC. We enrolled 59 patients with 59 HCCs in this retrospective study. Tumor size and tumor vascularity were evaluated using SCEUS before and 1, 3, 7, 10, and 13 months after radiotherapy. The median follow-up period was 44.5 months (range: 16–82 months). Of the HCCs, 95% (56/59) had no local recurrence, while 5% (3/59) did. At 13 months after radiotherapy, in cases with no local recurrence, SCEUS showed a reduction in tumor vascularity in all cases, while tumor size reduction (>30% reduction, compared with pre-radiotherapy) was observed in 82.1% (46/56). In all three cases of local recurrence, vascularity and tumor size reduction were not observed during the follow-up period and residual HCCs were demonstrated pathologically. Compared with cases with local recurrence, tumor size reduction and reduction in tumor vascularity (p < 0.001) were significantly greater in cases with no local recurrence at 13 months after radiotherapy. SCEUS may be useful in evaluating radiotherapy efficacy for HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akihiro Funaoka
- Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 232-0024, Japan; (A.F.); (H.N.); (M.C.); (H.F.)
- Division of Gastroenterology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0004, Japan;
| | - Kazushi Numata
- Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 232-0024, Japan; (A.F.); (H.N.); (M.C.); (H.F.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +81-45-261-5656
| | - Atsuya Takeda
- Radiation Oncology Center, Ofuna Chuo Hospital, Kamakura, Kanagawa 247-0056, Japan; (A.T.); (Y.T.)
| | - Yusuke Saigusa
- Department of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0004, Japan;
| | - Yuichirou Tsurugai
- Radiation Oncology Center, Ofuna Chuo Hospital, Kamakura, Kanagawa 247-0056, Japan; (A.T.); (Y.T.)
| | - Hiromi Nihonmatsu
- Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 232-0024, Japan; (A.F.); (H.N.); (M.C.); (H.F.)
| | - Makoto Chuma
- Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 232-0024, Japan; (A.F.); (H.N.); (M.C.); (H.F.)
| | - Hiroyuki Fukuda
- Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 232-0024, Japan; (A.F.); (H.N.); (M.C.); (H.F.)
| | - Masahiro Okada
- Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo 173-8610, Japan;
| | - Masayuki Nakano
- Tokyo Central Pathology Laboratory, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0024, Japan;
| | - Shin Maeda
- Division of Gastroenterology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0004, Japan;
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Wang YF, Dai YH, Lin CS, Chang HC, Shen PC, Yang JF, Hsiang CW, Lo CH, Huang WY. Clinical outcome and pathologic correlation of stereotactic body radiation therapy as a bridge to transplantation for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a case series. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:15. [PMID: 33446231 PMCID: PMC7807861 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01739-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2020] [Accepted: 12/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is scant information about its safety and effectiveness in the neoadjuvant setting prior to liver transplantation (LT). We present the clinical outcome and pathologic assessment of SBRT followed by LT for patients with advanced HCC. METHODS This retrospective study included HCC patients treated with neoadjuvant SBRT prior to LT between 2009 and 2018. Radiographic response and adverse effects, including radiation-induced liver disease (RILD), were evaluated. Pathologic response was assessed by the percentage of tumor necrosis relative to the total tumor volume. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Fourteen patients underwent SBRT for a total of 25 HCC lesions, followed by LT. The median tumor size was 4.45 cm in diameter, and the median prescribed dose was 45 Gy in 5 fractions. SBRT provided significant AFP reduction, 100% infield control, and a 62.5% response rate. The maximum detected toxicity included grade 3 thrombocytopenia and two grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia. One patient developed non-classic RILD. Patients were bridged to LT with a median time of 8.4 months after SBRT, and 23.1% of them achieved a complete pathologic response. The median OS and RFS were 37.8 and 18.3 months from the time of LT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS SBRT provides favorable tumor control and acceptable adverse effects for patients awaiting LT. Further prospective studies to test SBRT as a bridging therapy for LT are feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ying-Fu Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Yang-Hong Dai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Chun-Shu Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Hao-Chih Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Po-Chien Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Jen-Fu Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Chih-Weim Hsiang
- Department of Radiology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Cheng-Hsiang Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan.
| | - Wen-Yen Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, No. 325, Cheng-Gong Rd, Neihu, Taipei, 114, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Maebayashi T, Ishibashi N, Aizawa T, Sakaguchi M, Okada M. Stereotactic radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma induced by hepatitis C and the relationships of changes in carbohydrate antigen 19-9 with AFP and PIVKA-II. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:242-248. [PMID: 33455875 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2020.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Assessing the therapeutic effects of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) takes time. Purpose of our study was to explore the relationships of changes in carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) with those in the existing markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist-II (PIVKA-II). PATIENTS AND METHODS The subjects were 16 patients who underwent SBRT for solitary HCC ≤3cm induced by hepatitis C between June 2016 and July 2019. Observation periods ranged from 8-43 (median: 28) months, ages from 59-85 (median: 65) years. RESULTS Changes in CA 19-9 levels after SBRT were categorised into three patterns: 1) a transient elevation followed by a decline (75%); 2) a transient decline followed by an elevation (18.8%); and 3) no change (6.3%). Among patients showing a transient CA 19-9 elevation followed by a decline, which was the most frequent pattern, 75% showed these changes in synchronisation with AFP and preceded the changes in PIVKA-II, while in the other 25%, CA 19-9 changes were in synchronisation with PIVKA-II and preceded those in AFP. At the time of recurrence, 62.5% showed a continuous CA 19-9 elevation, either in synchronisation with other markers or by itself. CONCLUSIONS This is the first investigation of changes in CA 19-9 levels after SBRT for HCC induced by hepatitis C. Characteristic changes in CA 19-9, AFP, and PIVKA-II levels were observed as responses after treatment. As for its correlations with tumour markers, the acute responses of PIVKA-II tended to be slower than those of CA 19-9 and AFP. Although the sample size was small, our findings raise the possibility that measuring these 3 biomarkers after SBRT may be useful for monitoring patients for HCC recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Maebayashi
- Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchi Kami-cho Itabashi-ku, 173-8610 Tokyo, Japan.
| | - N Ishibashi
- Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchi Kami-cho Itabashi-ku, 173-8610 Tokyo, Japan.
| | - T Aizawa
- Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchi Kami-cho Itabashi-ku, 173-8610 Tokyo, Japan.
| | - M Sakaguchi
- Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchi Kami-cho Itabashi-ku, 173-8610 Tokyo, Japan.
| | - M Okada
- Department of Radiology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1, Oyaguchi Kami-cho Itabashi-ku, 173-8610 Tokyo, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Aslam A, Do RKG, Chernyak V, Mendiratta-Lala M. LI-RADS Imaging Criteria for HCC Diagnosis and Treatment: Emerging Evidence. CURRENT HEPATOLOGY REPORTS 2020; 19:437-447. [DOI: 10.1007/s11901-020-00546-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/07/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2025]
|
|
34
|
Mendiratta-Lala M, Masch W, Owen D, Aslam A, Maurino C, Devasia T, Schipper MJ, Parikh ND, Cuneo K, Lawrence TS, Davenport MS. Natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma after stereotactic body radiation therapy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45:3698-3708. [PMID: 32303772 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02532-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the long-term natural history of size change in SBRT-treated HCC to identify an imaging biomarker to help assess treatment response. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive HCCs treated with SBRT from January 2008 to December 2016 with either 2 years post-treatment MRI follow-up or post-treatment resection histology. Size, major features for HCC, and mRECIST and LI-RADS v.2018 treatment response criteria were assessed at each post-treatment MRI. Local progression, distant progression, and survival were modeled with Kaplan Meier analyses. RESULTS 56 HCCs met inclusion criteria. Mean baseline HCC diameter was 30 mm (range: 9-105 mm). At 3 months, 76% (N = 43) of treated HCCs decreased in size (mean reduction: 8 mm, range: 5-99 mm) and 0% (N = 0) increased in size. By 24 months, 11% (N = 5) had increased in size and were considered local progression. APHE remained in 77% (43/56) at 3 months, 38% (19/50) at 12 months, and 23% (11/47) at 24 months. mRECIST-defined viable disease was observed in 77% (43/56) at 3 months and 20% (9/47) at 24 months. LI-RADS v.2018 criteria identified viable or equivocal disease in 0% at 3 months and 10% (5/47) at 24 months. CONCLUSION Gradual loss of APHE and slow decrease in size are normal findings in HCCs treated with SBRT, and persistent APHE does not indicate viable disease. mRECIST is not accurate in the assessment of HCC after SBRT due to an overreliance on APHE to define viable disease. Increasing mass size or new nodular APHE at the treatment site may indicate local progression.
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Aslam A, Do RKG, Kambadakone A, Spieler B, Miller FH, Gabr AM, Charalel RA, Kim CY, Madoff DC, Mendiratta-Lala M. Hepatocellular carcinoma Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems treatment response assessment: Lessons learned and future directions. World J Hepatol 2020; 12:738-753. [PMID: 33200013 PMCID: PMC7643220 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v12.i10.738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2020] [Revised: 08/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with rising clinical and economic burden as incidence increases. There are a multitude of evolving treatment options, including locoregional therapies which can be used alone, in combination with each other, or in combination with systemic therapy. These treatment options have shown to be effective in achieving remission, controlling tumor progression, improving disease free and overall survival in patients who cannot undergo resection and providing a bridge to transplant by debulking tumor burden to downstage patients. Following locoregional therapy (LRT), it is crucial to provide treatment response assessment to guide management and liver transplant candidacy. Therefore, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (LI-RADS) Treatment Response Algorithm (TRA) was created to provide a standardized assessment of HCC following LRT. LI-RADS TRA provides a step by step approach to evaluate each lesion independently for accurate tumor assessment. In this review, we provide an overview of different locoregional therapies for HCC, describe the expected post treatment imaging appearance following treatment, and review the LI-RADS TRA with guidance for its application in clinical practice. Unique to other publications, we will also review emerging literature supporting the use of LI-RADS for assessment of HCC treatment response after LRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anum Aslam
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48019, United States.
| | - Richard Kinh Gian Do
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States
| | - Avinash Kambadakone
- Abdominal Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States
| | - Bradley Spieler
- Department of Radiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States
| | - Frank H Miller
- Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, United States
| | - Ahmed M Gabr
- Department of Interventional Radiology, OHSU and Tanta University, Egypt, Portland, OR 97239, United States
| | - Resmi A Charalel
- Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, United States
| | - Charles Y Kim
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, United States
| | - David C Madoff
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, United States
| | - Mishal Mendiratta-Lala
- School of Medicine, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States
| |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Guiu B. Stereotactic body radiation therapy vs. radiofrequency ablation in HCC: comparing noncomparable data. J Hepatol 2020; 73:727-728. [PMID: 32423631 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2020] [Accepted: 04/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Boris Guiu
- Department of Radiology, St-Eloi University Hospital, 34980 Montpellier, France.
| |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Jackson WC, Tang M, Maurino C, Mendiratta-Lala M, Parikh ND, Matuszak MM, Dow JS, Cao Y, Mayo CS, Ten Haken RK, Schipper MJ, Cuneo KC, Owen D, Lawrence TS. Individualized Adaptive Radiation Therapy Allows for Safe Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Child-Turcotte-Pugh B Liver Disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:212-219. [PMID: 32853708 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2019] [Revised: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Previous reports of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suggest unacceptably high rates of toxicity in patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) B liver disease. We hypothesized that an individualized adaptive treatment approach based on midtreatment liver function would maintain good local control while limiting toxicity in this population. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with CTP-B liver disease and HCC were treated on prospective trials of individualized adaptive SBRT between 2006 and 2018. Patients underwent pre- and midtreatment liver function assessments using indocyanine green. Treatment-related toxicity was defined as a ≥2-point increase in CTP score from pretreatment within 6 months of treatment. In addition, we performed analyses with a longitudinal model to assess changes in CTP score over 12 months after SBRT. RESULTS Eighty patients with CTP-B (median tumor size, 2.5 cm) were treated: 37 patients were CTP-B-7, 28 were CTP-B-8, and 15 were CTP-B-9. The median treatment dose was 36 Gy in 3 fractions. One-year local control was 92%. In a multivariate model controlling for tumor size, treatment dose, and baseline CTP score, higher treatment dose was associated with improved freedom from local progression (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.00; P = .04). Eighteen patients (24%) had a ≥2-point increase in CTP score within 6 months of SBRT. In a longitudinal model assessing changes in CTP score over 12 months after SBRT, controlling for baseline CTP and tumor size, increasing mean liver dose was associated with larger increases in CTP score (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS An individualized adaptive treatment approach allows for acceptable toxicity and effective local control in patients with HCC and CTP-B liver disease. Because increasing dose may increase both local control and toxicity, further work is needed to optimize treatment in patients with compromised liver function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William C Jackson
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| | - Ming Tang
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Christopher Maurino
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Neehar D Parikh
- University of Michigan Department of Gastroenterology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Martha M Matuszak
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Janell S Dow
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Yue Cao
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Charles S Mayo
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Randall K Ten Haken
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Matthew J Schipper
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kyle C Cuneo
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Dawn Owen
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Theodore S Lawrence
- University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Owen D, Lukovic J, Hosni A, Crane CH, Hong TS, Dawson LA, Velec M, Lawrence TS. Challenges in Reirradiation of Intrahepatic Tumors. Semin Radiat Oncol 2020; 30:242-252. [PMID: 32503790 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2020.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Definitive reirradiation using a stereotactic technique is an effective local treatment option for both recurrent liver metastases and recurrent primary liver cancers. The tolerance of the liver, bile ducts, and surrounding gastrointestinal luminal organs must be respected to ensure safe retreatment. The risks associated with retreatment to these organs must be carefully balanced with the probability of clinical benefit. We present 2 cases for consideration of repeat irradiation along with the opinions of 4 experts, along with conclusions about recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Jelena Lukovic
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ali Hosni
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Laura A Dawson
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Velec
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Viganò L, Lleo A, Muglia R, Gennaro N, Samà L, Colapietro F, Roncalli M, Aghemo A, Chiti A, Di Tommaso L, Solbiati L, Colombo M, Torzilli G. Intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma with radiological enhancement patterns mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma. Updates Surg 2020; 72:413-421. [PMID: 32323164 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00750-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Accepted: 03/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients requires demonstration of wash-in and wash-out on contrast-enhanced imaging. Recent studies have reported misclassification of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (MFCCC) as HCC. We aimed to analyze the contrast enhancement patterns of MFCCC, focusing especially on lesions mimicking HCC. We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients with MFCCC who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2017. Patients with mixed HCC-MFCCC were excluded. Two expert radiologists reviewed preoperative CT and MRI. Full-nodule hyperenhancement in the arterial phase in conjunction with hypoenhancement in the portal/late phase was classified as an "HCC-like pattern". Imaging of MFCCCs with an HCC-like pattern was reviewed by an additional radiologist blinded to clinical data. Ninety-two patients were analyzed. All patients were investigated with multiphase CT and 85 with MRI. Twelve tumors (13%) showed full-nodule arterial hyperenhancement. Of these, four were hypoenhancing in the portal/late phase. Overall, 4/92 (4%) MFCCCs (4/45 in patients with cirrhosis/hepatitis, 9%) showed an HCC-like pattern accounting for misclassification as HCC on imaging review. HCC-like MFCCCs accounted for 9% of single tumors ≤ 50 mm. All HCC-like MFCCCs occurred in patients with cirrhosis or hepatitis, whereas only 47% of non-HCC-like MFCCCs did so (p = 0.053). After a median follow-up of 29 months, all patients with HCC-like MFCCCs are alive and disease free (median 64 months). In conclusion, MFCCC was misdiagnosed as typical HCC in 4% of all cases and in 9% of patients with single tumors ≤ 50 mm or with cirrhosis/hepatitis. The risk of misdiagnosis should be considered prior to treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Viganò
- Division of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Ana Lleo
- Division of Internal Medicine and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Riccardo Muglia
- Department of Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicolò Gennaro
- Department of Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
| | - Laura Samà
- Division of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Colapietro
- Division of Internal Medicine and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Roncalli
- Pathology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Alessio Aghemo
- Division of Internal Medicine and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Arturo Chiti
- Department of Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Luca Di Tommaso
- Pathology Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Luigi Solbiati
- Department of Radiology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Massimo Colombo
- Division of Internal Medicine and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
| | - Guido Torzilli
- Division of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Kimura T, Doi Y, Takahashi S, Kubo K, Imano N, Takeuchi Y, Takahashi I, Nishibuchi I, Murakami Y, Kenjo M, Nagata Y. An overview of stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 14:271-279. [PMID: 32223683 DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2020.1744434] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Introduction: According to several guidelines, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be considered an alternative to other modalities, such as resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), or when these therapies have failed or are contraindicated. This article reviews the current status of SBRT for the treatment of HCC.Areas covered: From the results of many retrospective reports, SBRT is a promising modality with an excellent local control of almost 90% at 2-3 years and acceptable toxicities. Currently there are no randomized trials to compare SBRT and other modalities, such as resection, RFA, and TACE, but many retrospective reports and propensity score matching have shown that SBRT is comparable to the different modalities. Repeated SBRT for intra-hepatic recurrent HCC also resulted in high local control with safety and satisfactory overall survival, which were comparable to those of other curative local treatments.Expert opinion: Despite the good results of SBRT, the conclusions of the comparisons of SBRT and other modalities are still controversial. Further studies, including randomized phase III studies to define that patients are more suitable for each curative local treatment, are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomoki Kimura
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Yoshiko Doi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hiroshima High-precision Radiotherapy Cancer Center (HIPRAC), Higashi-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Sigeo Takahashi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kagawa University Hospital, Miki-cho, Japan
| | - Katsumaro Kubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hiroshima High-precision Radiotherapy Cancer Center (HIPRAC), Higashi-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Nobuki Imano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Yuki Takeuchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Ippei Takahashi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Ikuno Nishibuchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Yuji Murakami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Masahiro Kenjo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hiroshima High-precision Radiotherapy Cancer Center (HIPRAC), Higashi-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| | - Yasushi Nagata
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Hiroshima High-precision Radiotherapy Cancer Center (HIPRAC), Higashi-ku, Hiroshima City, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Mendiratta-Lala M, Masch WR, Shampain K, Zhang A, Jo AS, Moorman S, Aslam A, Maturen KE, Davenport MS. MRI Assessment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Local-Regional Therapy: A Comprehensive Review. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2020; 2:e190024. [PMID: 33778692 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2020190024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2019] [Revised: 07/29/2019] [Accepted: 09/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Nearly 80% of cirrhotic patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are not eligible for surgical resection and instead undergo local-regional treatment. After therapy for HCC, patients undergo imaging surveillance to assess treatment efficacy and identify potential sites of progressive tumor elsewhere within the liver. Accurate interpretation of posttreatment imaging is essential for guiding further management decisions, and radiologists must understand expected treatment-specific imaging findings for each of the local-regional therapies. Of interest, expected imaging findings seen after radiation-based therapies (transarterial radioembolization and stereotactic body radiation therapy) are different than those seen after thermal ablation and transarterial chemoembolization. Given differences in expected posttreatment imaging findings, the current radiologic treatment response assessment algorithms used for HCC (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors classification, European Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria, and Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Treatment Response Algorithm) must be applied cautiously for radiation-based therapies in which persistent arterial phase hyperenhancement in the early posttreatment period is common and expected. This article will review the concept of tumor response assessment for HCC, the forms of local-regional therapy for HCC, and the expected posttreatment findings for each form of therapy. Keywords: Abdomen/GI, Liver, MR-Imaging, Treatment Effects, Tumor Response © RSNA, 2020.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mishal Mendiratta-Lala
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - William R Masch
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Kimberly Shampain
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Andrew Zhang
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Alexandria S Jo
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Sarah Moorman
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Anum Aslam
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Katherine E Maturen
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| | - Matthew S Davenport
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, UH B2A209R, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5030
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Local Tumor Control and Patient Outcome Using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: iRECIST as a Potential Substitute for Traditional Criteria. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213:1232-1239. [PMID: 31613663 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.18.20842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether, compared with traditional criteria, the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for immune-based therapeutics (iRECIST) improves prediction of local tumor control and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-one HCC lesions (mean size, 3.1 cm) treated with SBRT in 41 patients (mean age, 67 years) were retrospectively included. Each patient underwent CT or MRI before SBRT and at least once after SBRT. Best overall response was categorized using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), iRECIST, World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria. Lesions were then classified as local tumor control (i.e., stable disease, partial response, or complete response) or local treatment failure (i.e., progressive disease) by each tumor response criteria. Proportions of local tumor control were compared using the McNemar exact test. The 1-year overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS. The median follow-up after SBRT was 21.0 months. The local tumor control rate was 94.1% (48/51) by iRECIST, 88.2% (45/51) by RECIST 1.1, 72.5% (37/51) by WHO criteria, 80.4% (41/51) by mRECIST, and 72.5% (37/51) by EASL criteria. The local tumor control rate was significantly higher according to iRECIST compared with WHO (p = 0.0010) and EASL (p = 0.0225) criteria. The 1-year survival rate for patients with local tumor control according to iRECIST (86.4%) was higher (although not statistically significant) compared with the 1-year survival rate for patients with local tumor control according to the other response criteria. CONCLUSION. iRECIST may provide more robust interpretation of HCC response after SBRT, yielding improved prediction of local tumor control and 1-year survival rates compared with traditional criteria.
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Gerum S, Jensen AD, Roeder F. Stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A mini-review. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2019; 11:367-376. [PMID: 31139307 PMCID: PMC6522765 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i5.367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2019] [Revised: 03/14/2019] [Accepted: 03/27/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. This technique results in excellent local control rates with favorable toxicity profile despite being predominantly used in heavily pretreated patients or those unsuitable for other local therapies. SBRT may be used as a sole treatment or in combination with other local therapies as well as a bridging strategy for patient awaiting liver transplants. This brief review describes current practice of SBRT with respect to radiation technique, patient selection and treatment concepts. It summarizes available evidence from retro- and prospective studies evaluating SBRT alone, SBRT in combination with other treatments and SBRT compared to other local treatment approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabine Gerum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, 81377, Germany
| | - Alexandra D Jensen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Gießen and Marburg, Marburg, 35043, Germany
| | - Falk Roeder
- CCU Molecular Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, 74626, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, 5020, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Mastrocostas K, Jang HJ, Fischer S, Dawson LA, Munoz-Schuffenegger P, Sapisochin G, Kim TK. Imaging post-stereotactic body radiation therapy responses for hepatocellular carcinoma: typical imaging patterns and pitfalls. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44:1795-1807. [PMID: 30710166 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-01901-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has increased utility in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ranging from local therapy in early-stage HCC not suitable for other focal therapies to end-stage HCC. As the indications for the use of SBRT in HCC expand, diagnostic imaging is being increasingly used to assess response to treatment. The imaging features of tumor response do not parallel those of other focal therapies such as radiofrequency ablation or trans-arterial chemoembolization that immediately devascularize the tumor. The tumor response to SBRT on imaging takes much longer and often shows gradual changes including the reduction of enhancement and size over several months. It is essential to recognize the typical imaging patterns of response, as well as the appearance of focal liver reaction in the non-target liver that can confound image interpretation. The timing of treatment response assessment imaging is fundamental to minimize the potential for false negative response. The purpose of this article is to review the variable post-SBRT imaging features of HCC and adjacent liver parenchyma and discuss the potential pitfalls of imaging evaluation after SBRT for HCC.
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Computed tomography features of local pleural recurrence in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated with intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy. Eur Radiol 2019; 29:3696-3704. [PMID: 30689034 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5937-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2018] [Revised: 10/11/2018] [Accepted: 11/29/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study was conducted in order to describe the computed tomography (CT) features of local pleural recurrence in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma undergoing intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) as part of multimodality treatment. METHODS In this observational study, 58 patients treated with IMPRINT between September 21, 2004, and December 1, 2014 were included. Baseline and follow-up CT scans were qualitatively assessed. On follow-up scans, pleural thickening was categorized as unchanged, decreased, or new/increased. New/increased pleural abnormality was subcategorized as diffuse smooth pleural thickening, diffuse nodular pleural thickening, focal pleural nodule, or multiple pleural nodules. To identify features more frequently present at the time of local recurrence, follow-up scans with local recurrence were matched to four control scans; exact conditional logistic regression was performed. RESULTS Twenty-one (36%) patients had local pleural recurrence and 20 (34%) patients had nonpleural recurrence; 3 patients had both types of recurrence. The 1-year cumulative incidence rate of local recurrence was 27% (95% confidence interval 15, 39). On follow-up scans, three patterns of pleural abnormality were significantly associated with local recurrence: new/increased multiple pleural nodules (10 (48%) positive scans vs 0 control scans), new/increased diffuse nodular pleural thickening (7 (33%) positive scans vs 1 (1%) control scans), and new/increased focal pleural nodule (3 (14%) positive scans vs 1 (1%) control scan) (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS Multiple new/increased pleural nodules are the feature most commonly present at local recurrence following IMPRINT; however, any pattern of increased nodular pleural thickening is suspicious. KEY POINTS • In patients with mesothelioma receiving intensity-modulated pleural radiation as part of multimodality therapy, increasing multiple pleural nodules is the computed tomography feature most commonly present at local recurrence. • In these patients, any CT pattern of increased nodular pleural thickening should be considered suspicious for local recurrence. • The most common sites of nonpleural recurrence were lung parenchyma, thoracic lymph nodes, and peritoneum.
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Schaub SK, Hartvigson PE, Lock MI, Høyer M, Brunner TB, Cardenes HR, Dawson LA, Kim EY, Mayr NA, Lo SS, Apisarnthanarax S. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Trends and Controversies. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2018; 17:1533033818790217. [PMID: 30068240 PMCID: PMC6071169 DOI: 10.1177/1533033818790217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide.
Depending on the extent of disease and competing comorbidities for mortality, multiple
liver-directed therapy options exist for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Advancements in radiation oncology have led to the emergence of stereotactic body
radiation therapy as a promising liver-directed therapy, which delivers high doses of
radiation with a steep dose gradient to maximize local tumor control and minimize
radiation-induced treatment toxicity. In this study, we review the current clinical data
as well as the unresolved issues and controversies regarding stereotactic body radiation
therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: (1) Is there a radiation dose–response relationship
with hepatocellular carcinoma? (2) What are the optimal dosimetric predictors of
radiation-induced liver disease, and do they differ for patients with varying liver
function? (3) How do we assess treatment response on imaging? (4) How does stereotactic
body radiation therapy compare to other liver-directed therapy modalities, including
proton beam therapy? Based on the current literature discussed, this review highlights
future possible research and clinical directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie K Schaub
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Pehr E Hartvigson
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Michael I Lock
- 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
| | - Morten Høyer
- 3 Aarhus University Hospital, Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Thomas B Brunner
- 4 Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
| | | | - Laura A Dawson
- 6 Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Edward Y Kim
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Nina A Mayr
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Simon S Lo
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
47
|
Lo EC, N. Rucker A, Federle MP. Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Imaging for Diagnosis, Tumor Response to Treatment and Liver Response to Radiation. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28:267-276. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2018.06.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
|
48
|
Mendiratta-Lala M, Masch W, Shankar PR, Hartman HE, Davenport MS, Schipper MJ, Maurino C, Cuneo KC, Lawrence TS, Owen D. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: Long Term Imaging Follow-Up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 103:169-179. [PMID: 30213751 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 09/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the natural history of imaging findings seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Although arterial hyperenhancement is a key feature of untreated HCC, our clinical experience suggested that tumors that never progressed could still show hyperenhancement. Therefore, we undertook a systematic study to test the hypothesis that persistent arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) after SBRT is an expected finding that does not suggest failure of treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS One hundred forty-six patients undergoing SBRT for HCC between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, were screened retrospectively using an institutional review board-approved prospectively maintained registry. Inclusion criteria were (1) HCC treated with SBRT, (2) multiphasic MRI ≤3 months before SBRT, (3) up to 1 year of follow-up MRI post-SBRT, and (4) cirrhosis. The exclusion criterion was ≤3 months of locoregional therapy to the liver segment containing the SBRT-treated HCC. Pre- and post-SBRT MRI from up to 3 years were analyzed in consensus by independent pairs of subspecialty-trained radiologists to determine the temporal evolution of major features for HCC and imaging findings in off-target parenchyma. RESULTS Sixty-two patients with 67 HCCs (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network imaging criteria [OPTN] 5a [n = 26], OPTN 5b [n = 28], OPTN 5x [n = 7]; Liver Imaging Reporting Data System [LI-RAD]-M [n = 4] and LiRADs-4 [n = 2]) were studied. Tumor size either decreased (66% [44 of 67]) or remained unchanged (34% [23 of 67]) within the first 12 months. Post-SBRT APHE was common (58% [39 of 67]). When graded using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at 3 to 6 months, 25% (17 of 67) met criteria for complete response and 75% (50 of 67) met criteria for stable disease. CONCLUSIONS SBRT is an effective locoregional treatment option for HCC. Persistent APHE is common and does not necessarily indicate viable neoplasm; thus, standard response assessment such as modified Response Evaluation Criteria should be used with caution, particularly in the early phases after SBRT therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - William Masch
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Prasad R Shankar
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Holly E Hartman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Matthew J Schipper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Chris Maurino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kyle C Cuneo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Theodore S Lawrence
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|