Cargando…

Comparison of liver exposure in CT-guided high-dose rate (HDR) interstitial brachytherapy versus SBRT in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND: In unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma several local ablative treatments are available. Among others, radiation based treatments such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and high-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR BT) have shown good local control rates. METHODS: We conduct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walter, Franziska, Nierer, Lukas, Rottler, Maya, Duque, Anna Sophie, Weingandt, Helmut, Well, Justus, Shpani, Roel, Landry, Guillaume, Seidensticker, Max, Streitparth, Florian, Ricke, Jens, Belka, Claus, Corradini, Stefanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8103624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33957941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-021-01812-7
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: In unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma several local ablative treatments are available. Among others, radiation based treatments such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and high-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR BT) have shown good local control rates. METHODS: We conducted a dose comparison between actually performed HDR BT versus virtually planned SBRT to evaluate the respective clinically relevant radiation exposure to uninvolved liver tissue. Moreover, dose coverage and conformity indices were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 46 treatment sessions (71 lesions, 38 patients) were evaluated. HDR BT was applied in a single fraction with a dose prescription of 1 × 15 Gy. D98 was 17.9 ± 1.3 Gy, D50 was 41.8 ± 8.1 Gy. The SBRT was planned with a prescribed dose of 3 × 12.5 Gy (65%-Isodose), D98 was 50.7 ± 3.1 Gy, D2 was 57.0 ± 2.3 Gy, and D50 was 55.2 ± 2.3 Gy. Regarding liver exposure Vliver10Gy(BT) was compared to Vliver15.9Gy(SBRT), Vliver16.2Gy(SBRT) (EQD2 equivalent doses), and Vliver20Gy(SBRT) (clinically relevant dose), all results showed significant differences (p < .001). In a case by case analysis Vliver10Gy(BT) was smaller than Vliver20Gy(SBRT) in 38/46 cases (83%). Dmean of the liver was significantly smaller in BT compared to SBRT (p < .001). GTV volume was correlated to the liver exposure and showed an advantage of HDR BT over SBRT in comparison of clinically relevant doses, and for EQD2 equivalent doses. The advantage was more pronounced for greater liver lesions The Conformity Index (CI) was significantly better for BT, while Healthy Tissue Conformity Index (HTCI) and Conformation Number (CN) showed an advantage for SBRT (p < .001). CONCLUSION: HDR BT can be advantageous in respect of sparing of normal liver tissue as compared to SBRT, while providing excellent target conformity.