File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)

Article: Prospective study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma on waitlist for liver transplant

TitleProspective study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma on waitlist for liver transplant
Authors
Issue Date2021
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hepatology.org/
Citation
Hepatology, 2021, Epub 2021-06-06 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground and Aims: There are no prospective data on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for HCC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT as bridging therapy, with comparison with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Approach and Results: Patients were prospectively enrolled for SBRT under a standardized protocol from July 2015 and compared with a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent TACE or HIFU from 2010. The primary endpoint was tumor control rate at 1 year after bridging therapy. Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of dropout, toxicity, and posttransplant survival. During the study period, 150 patients were evaluated (SBRT, n = 40; TACE, n = 59; HIFU, n = 51). The tumor control rate at 1 year was significantly higher after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (92.3%, 43.5%, and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.02). With competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of dropout at 1 and 3 years after listing was lower after SBRT (15.1% and 23.3%) compared with TACE (28.9% and 45.8%; P = 0.034) and HIFU (33.3% and 45.1%; P = 0.032). Time-to-progression at 1 and 3 years was also superior after SBRT (10.8%, 18.5% in SBRT, 45%, 54.9% in TACE, and 47.6%, 62.8% in HIFU; P < 0.001). The periprocedural toxicity was similar, without any difference in perioperative complications and patient and recurrence-free survival rates after transplant. Pathological complete response was more frequent after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (48.1% vs. 25% vs. 17.9%, respectively; P = 0.037). In multivariable analysis, tumor size <3 cm, listing alpha-fetoprotein <200 ng/mL, Child A, and SBRT significantly reduced the risk of dropout. Conclusions: SBRT was safe, with a significantly higher tumor control rate, reduced the risk of waitlist dropout, and should be used as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies.
DescriptionHybrid open access
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/304609
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 17.298
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 5.488
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, TCL-
dc.contributor.authorLee, VHF-
dc.contributor.authorLaw, ALY-
dc.contributor.authorPang, HH-
dc.contributor.authorLam, KO-
dc.contributor.authorLau, V-
dc.contributor.authorCui, TY-
dc.contributor.authorFong, SY-
dc.contributor.authorLee, SWM-
dc.contributor.authorWong, ECY-
dc.contributor.authorDai, JWC-
dc.contributor.authorChan, ACY-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, TT-
dc.contributor.authorFung, JYY-
dc.contributor.authorYeung, RMW-
dc.contributor.authorLuk, MY-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, TW-
dc.contributor.authorLo, CM-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-05T02:32:36Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-05T02:32:36Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationHepatology, 2021, Epub 2021-06-06-
dc.identifier.issn0270-9139-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/304609-
dc.descriptionHybrid open access-
dc.description.abstractBackground and Aims: There are no prospective data on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for HCC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT as bridging therapy, with comparison with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Approach and Results: Patients were prospectively enrolled for SBRT under a standardized protocol from July 2015 and compared with a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent TACE or HIFU from 2010. The primary endpoint was tumor control rate at 1 year after bridging therapy. Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of dropout, toxicity, and posttransplant survival. During the study period, 150 patients were evaluated (SBRT, n = 40; TACE, n = 59; HIFU, n = 51). The tumor control rate at 1 year was significantly higher after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (92.3%, 43.5%, and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.02). With competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of dropout at 1 and 3 years after listing was lower after SBRT (15.1% and 23.3%) compared with TACE (28.9% and 45.8%; P = 0.034) and HIFU (33.3% and 45.1%; P = 0.032). Time-to-progression at 1 and 3 years was also superior after SBRT (10.8%, 18.5% in SBRT, 45%, 54.9% in TACE, and 47.6%, 62.8% in HIFU; P < 0.001). The periprocedural toxicity was similar, without any difference in perioperative complications and patient and recurrence-free survival rates after transplant. Pathological complete response was more frequent after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (48.1% vs. 25% vs. 17.9%, respectively; P = 0.037). In multivariable analysis, tumor size <3 cm, listing alpha-fetoprotein <200 ng/mL, Child A, and SBRT significantly reduced the risk of dropout. Conclusions: SBRT was safe, with a significantly higher tumor control rate, reduced the risk of waitlist dropout, and should be used as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hepatology.org/-
dc.relation.ispartofHepatology-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleProspective study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma on waitlist for liver transplant-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailWong, TCL: wongtcl@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLee, VHF: vhflee@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailPang, HH: herbpang@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLam, KO: lamkaon@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFong, SY: annafong@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailDai, JWC: daiwc@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, ACY: acchan@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, TT: cheung68@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFung, JYY: jfung@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLuk, MY: myluk@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLeung, TW: ltw920@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLo, CM: chungmlo@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityWong, TCL=rp01679-
dc.identifier.authorityLee, VHF=rp00264-
dc.identifier.authorityPang, HH=rp01857-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, KO=rp01501-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, ACY=rp00310-
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, TT=rp02129-
dc.identifier.authorityFung, JYY=rp00518-
dc.identifier.authorityLo, CM=rp00412-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hep.31992-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85115983256-
dc.identifier.hkuros326532-
dc.identifier.hkuros324219-
dc.identifier.volumeEpub 2021-06-06-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000701954900001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats