Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With or Without Transarterial Chemoembolization Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization Alone in Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to review the current evidence on the utility of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (ESHCC) patients not amenable to standard curative treatment options. METHODS: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Comparative studies reporting oncologic outcomes were included in the review. RESULTS: Five studies (one phase II randomized controlled trial, one prospective cohort, three retrospective studies) compared SBRT versus TACE. Pooled analysis showed an overall survival (OS) benefit after 3 years (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.34, p = 0.005) which persisted in the 5-year data (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06-2.22, p = 0.02) in favor of SBRT. RFS benefit with SBRT was also seen at 3 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.03-4.11, p = 0.04) which continued after 5 years (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.47-3.75, p = 0.0004). Pooled 2-year local control (LC) favored SBRT over TACE (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.89-4.63, p < 0.00001). Two retrospective studies compared TACE + SBRT versus TACE alone. Pooled analysis showed significantly improved 3-year OS (OR 5.47; 95% CI 2.47-12.11, p < 0.0001) and LC (OR: 21.05; 95% CI 5.01-88.39, p ≤ 0.0001) in favor of the TACE + SBRT group. A phase III study showed significantly improved LC and PFS with SBRT after failed TACE/TAE versus further TACE/TAE. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account the limitations of the included studies, our review suggests significantly improved clinical outcomes in all groups having SBRT as a component of treatment versus TACE alone or further TACE. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further define the role of SBRT and TACE for ESHCC.

Interfraction Variation and Dosimetric Changes in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Intracavitary Brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Intracavitary brachytherapy is integral in the treatment of cervical cancer. Because of interfraction variation, the current standard is replanning with every fraction. This study aimed to determine whether there was a difference in relative dosimetry if the source position and dwell time of the first fraction were applied to subsequent fractions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of charts and films from 2007 to 2012. Eligible cases were patients with cervical cancer treated with brachytherapy with the same dose prescription to point A. Replanning was done on the first set of orthogonal plates. Source position and dwell time were subsequently applied to the remaining fractions using actual films. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were included in this study. The results showed that cervical, rectal, and bladder dose between the actual plan and the hypothetical plan were not statistically different. In the hypothetical plan, the source activity and dwell time of the first plan were applied to the orthogonal films of the subsequent fractions and showed no significant difference in all dose points. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed proof of concept of the safety of using the source position and dwell time of the first plan for subsequent fractions. Until further studies are performed (also using three-dimensional planning software), the concept should be considered investigational because of the small sample size of the study. Until such research is performed, it is still strongly recommended that replanning be performed with every fraction whenever it is feasible.