@article{JGO25582,
author = {Emily J. Anstadt and Richard Shumway and Joseph Colasanto and David Grew},
title = {Single community-based institutional series of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of liver metastases},
journal = {Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology},
volume = {10},
number = {2},
year = {2018},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a safe and effective option for treatment of liver metastases. However, existing data are mostly reported by high-volume centers. There have been reports that advanced radiotherapy techniques performed at low-volume centers result in inferior outcomes. Our goal was to assess the implementation of SBRT for the treatment of liver metastases at a low-volume center by studying the efficacy and toxicity of this technology through retrospective database review at a single, community-based institution.
Methods: We performed an IRB approved patient registry study. Patients had a median age of 65, KPS of at least 70 (median 90) and primary tumor controlled. All patients underwent fiducial marker placement under CT-guidance 1–2 weeks prior to planning scans. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated using contrast enhanced CT scans, as well as fusion with PET and/or MRI scans. GTV was expanded by 5 mm to create the planning target volume (PTV). Treatment was delivered by image guided stereotactic robotic radiosurgery with respiratory motion tracking. Lesions were treated with 3 fractions to a median total dose of 54 Gy. Overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS) and local failure-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank statistic was used to compare local control based on GTV volume.
Results: Between 2006 and 2016, 42 consecutively treated patients with 81 metastatic liver lesions were treated with SBRT. Median follow-up was 25 months. Major primary tumor sites were colon (n=18) and lung (n=7). Synchronous extrahepatic disease was present in 15% of the treated lesions and 46% had prior local treatment of liver metastases. The number of lesions treated concurrently ranged from 1 to 4. Lesions had a median maximum diameter of 2.5 cm (range, 0.5–9.5 cm), and a mean volume of 53 cc (range, 0.5– 363.0 cc). Kaplan-Meier estimated 1- and 2-year overall survival was 72% and 62%. Estimated 1- and 2-year progression free survival was 32% and 23%. Estimated 1- and 2-year local control was 86% and 80%. Two year local control was worse for lesions >50 cc compared to lesions ≤50 cc (62% vs. 84%, P=0.04). Toxicity occurred in 26% of treatment courses and included grade 1 (n=12) and grade 2 toxicity (n=3).
Conclusions: These results are comparable to available published data regarding the safety and efficacy of liver metastasis SBRT on trial at high volume institutions. Our findings, therefore, demonstrate the successful implementation of a liver metastasis SBRT program in the low-volume, community-hospital setting. These findings suggest that low-volume and high-volume centers are both options for liver metastasis SBRT.},
issn = {2219-679X}, url = {https://jgo.amegroups.org/article/view/25582}
}