Dataset Information

Twenty Years of Radiation Therapy of Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarinoma: Internal or External? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Both external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and selective-internal radiation therapy (SIRT) are implemented to treat unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EBRT and SIRT in managing iCCA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane database were queried to search for studies published from January 2000 toJune 2020 without language restrictions. Median survival time, overall survival, and radiological response were extracted. Secondary outcomes such as complication rates, predictors of survival, and downstage to surgery were pooled. Patient-level survival data were obtained to generate Kaplan-Meier survival graph. Pooled outcomes were analyzed with a random-effect model.

Results

Twenty-nine and 20 studies including 732 and 443 patients from the SIRT and EBRT groups were included in the present study. From initial radiation treatment, the median survival time for patients who underwent SIRT and EBRT were 12.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8–14.6) and 13.6 (95% CI: 11.1–16.0) months, respectively. As first-line therapy, the median survival time was 36.1 (95% CI: 20.6–39.5) months for SIRT and 11.0 (95% CI: 9.3–13.6) months for EBRT. Both radiation modalities were effective in downstaging initially unresectable iCCA to surgery (SIRT: 30.5%; EBRT: 18.3%). Patients in the SIRT group encountered more post-embolization abdominal pain (6.9 vs. 2.2%), ulcer (1.0 vs. 0.5%), nausea (1.6 vs. 0.7%), anorexia (5.9 vs. 0%), thrombocytopenia (7.3 vs. 6.0%), hyperbilirubinemia (5.2 vs. 2.1%), and hypoalbuminemia (13.2 vs. 3.3%), whereas EBRT was associated with higher rates of anemia (0.6 vs. 7.5%) and neutropenia (6.5 vs. 11.0%).

Conclusions

Both EBRT and SIRT were safe and effective in treating unresectable iCCA. However, available evidence was highly heterogeneous regarding patient population, limiting fair comparison between 2 radiation modalities. Future high-quality comparative studies are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Yu Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8527917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose:Patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer have demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes with surgical resection of hepatic and pulmonary metastases. Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) has emerged as an alternative local therapy for nonsurgical candidates. Herein, we report the oncologic and patient-reported quality-of-life (PR-QoL) outcomes for a subset of patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer who were treated in a prospective phase 2 multicenter clinical trial. Methods and materials:Patients with a pathologically proven diagnosis of oligometastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled as part of a prospective study. SABR dose and fractionation schedules were dependent on the lesion location and size. Patient follow-up occurred 6 weeks after completion of SABR and at 3-month intervals for the following 3 years. Patients received the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire at baseline and at each follow-up visit to assess PR-QoL. The total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire scores were compared with those from baseline using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Overall survival, local progression-free survival (PFS), and distant PFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimation to the date of the last follow-up visit/death or local/distant failure. Results:A total of 31 patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer with 1 (71.0%), 2 (16.1%), 3 (3.2%), 4 (3.2%), or 5 (6.5%) metastatic lesions were identified. After a median follow-up time of 50.1 months, the median OS from the time of completion of the SABR was 53.9 months (95% confidence interval, 23.2-84.6), and the 5-year OS, local PFS, and distant PFS were 45%, 83%, and 27%, respectively. Acute grade 2+ toxicity was 9.7% (pain, nausea, fatigue) and late grade 3+ toxicity (small bowel obstruction) was 3.2% with no significant change in PR-QoL in the year after SABR. Conclusions:This subset analysis of a prospective phase 2 study demonstrates that SABR is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with unresectable oligometastic colorectal cancer. In addition, SABR of oligometastatic disease preserves PR-QoL.

Project description:PurposeReirradiation (re-RT) using external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a novel salvage strategy for local failure in prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review describing oncologic and toxicity outcomes for salvage EBRT/stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) re-RT.Methods and materialsA International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registered (#141466) systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 2019. Outcome measures included local control (LC), biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and ≥grade 3 genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. EBRT and SBRT data were collected separately. Meta-regression explored disease and toxicity outcomes as a function of equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), length of follow-up, and partial versus whole prostate reirradiation.ResultsNineteen studies representing 13 cohorts were included (428 patients). Weighted mean follow-up was 26.1 months. Median re-RT EQD2 was 77.1 Gy (α/β = 1.5), with 92% of patients receiving SBRT, 52.1% of patients receiving partial prostate re-RT, and 30.1% of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy with re-RT. LC was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%-90.9%) and BRFS was 59.3% (47.9%-70.7%). Reported late toxicity ≥grade 3 was 3.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.8%) for GU and 2.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-4.0%) for GI. Meta-regression found higher LC, BRFS, and reported GU/GI toxicity with increasing EQD2, with partial prostate re-RT associated with less reported GU/GI toxicity and no detriment to LC and BRFS.ConclusionsSalvage re-RT using EBRT, particularly with SBRT, is an emerging technique to treat isolated local failure of prostate cancer. With short-term follow-up, LC, BRFS, and reported toxicities appear reasonable, although further follow-up is required before definitive statements on late toxicities can be made. Our review is limited by incomplete reporting of androgen deprivation therapy use in the primary literature. Further prospective studies and longer follow-up are needed before considering re-RT as standard practice.