Clinical outcomes of patients with unresectable primary liver cancer treated with MR-guided stereotactic body radiation Therapy: A Six-Year experience

Re-I Chin; Joshua P Schiff; Anirudh Bommireddy; Kylie H Kang; Neal Andruska; Alexander T Price; Olga L Green; Yi Huang; Kevin Korenblat; Parag J Parikh; Jefferey Olsen; Pamela P Samson; Lauren E Henke; Hyun Kim; Shahed N Badiyan

doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100627

Clinical outcomes of patients with unresectable primary liver cancer treated with MR-guided stereotactic body radiation Therapy: A Six-Year experience

Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2023 Apr 19:41:100627. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100627. eCollection 2023 Jul.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis MO, USA.
² St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
³ Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis MO, USA.
⁴ Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
⁵ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: Magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) with optional online adaptation has shown promise in delivering ablative doses to unresectable primary liver cancer. However, there remain limited data on the indications for online adaptation as well as dosimetric and longer-term clinical outcomes following MRgSBRT.

Methods and materials: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and combined biphenotypic hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) who completed MRgSBRT to 50 Gy in 5 fractions between June of 2015 and December of 2021 were analyzed. The necessity of adaptive techniques was evaluated. The cumulative incidence of local progression was evaluated and survival and competing risk analyses were performed.

Results: Ninety-nine analyzable patients completed MRgSBRT during the study period and 54 % had planning target volumes (PTVs) within 1 cm of the duodenum, small bowel, or stomach at the time of simulation. Online adaptive RT was used in 53 % of patients to correct organ-at-risk constraint violation and/or to improve target coverage. In patients who underwent adaptive RT planning, online replanning resulted in superior target coverage when compared to projected, non-adaptive plans (median coverage ≥ 95 % at 47.5 Gy: 91 % [IQR: 82-96] before adaptation vs 95 % [IQR: 87-99] after adaptation, p < 0.01). The median follow-up for surviving patients was 34.2 months for patients with HCC and 10.1 months for patients with CCA/cHCC-CCA. For all patients, the 2-year cumulative incidence of local progression was 9.8 % (95 % CI: 1.5-18 %) for patients with HCC and 9.0 % (95 % CI: 0.1-18) for patients with CCA/cHCC-CCA. Grade 3 through 5 acute and late clinical gastrointestinal toxicities were observed in < 10 % of the patients.

Conclusions: MRgSBRT, with the option for online adaptive planning when merited, allows delivery of ablative doses to primary liver tumors with excellent local control with acceptable toxicities. Additional studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of MRgSBRT in the treatment of primary liver cancer are warranted.