T. Katsuta

Clinical experience of volumetric modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pneumonectomy

Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) after extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). A total of 15 patients who received VMAT after EPP were enrolled. All patients were males, and the median age was 67 years (Stage IB in two, II in six, and III in seven patients). The clinical target volume (CTV) included the entire preoperative ipsilateral hemithorax and involved nodal stations. The CTV was generally expanded by 10–15 mm beyond the planning target volume (PTV). The dose prescription was designed to cover 95% of the PTV with 54 Gy in 30 fractions. The median follow-up period was 11 months. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) ver. 4. One-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 55.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 25.6–85.8%], 29.3% (95% CI: 5.3–53.3%), and 43.1% (95% CI: 17.1–69.0%), respectively. According to the histological analysis, the one-year LC rate was significantly worse in patients with non-epithelial type (biphasic and sarcomatoid types) than in patients with epithelial type [epithelial type: 83.3% (95% CI, 53.5–100%), non-epithelial type: 0% (95% CI, 0%), P = 0.0011]. Grade 3 pneumonitis after VMAT was observed in three patients (20.0%); however, no patients died of pulmonary toxicity. VMAT appears to be relatively safe for patients with MPM after EPP because of the low pulmonary dose.

Comparison of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Combined With or Without Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization for Patients With Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma Ineligible for Resection or Ablation Therapies

Introduction: To compare the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma who were ineligible for resection or ablation therapies. Methods: A total of 150 patients with 185 hepatocellular carcinoma (≤3 nodules, Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A or B, and no vascular or extrahepatic metastases) were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. In principle, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization was combined before stereotactic body radiation therapy (combination group), but some patients were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy alone. The prescribed dose of stereotactic body radiation therapy was 48 Gy in 4 fractions at the isocenter and 40 Gy in 4 or 5 fractions at the dose covering 95% of the planning target volume. The overall survival, progression-free survival, local progression free survival, and complication rates were retrospectively compared between the groups. Local progression was defined as irradiated tumor growth in dynamic computed tomography follow-up. Tumor responses were assessed according to the Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Results: Twenty-eight and 122 patients were enrolled in the stereotactic body radiation therapy alone and combination groups, respectively. The median follow-up periods were 16 and 29 months, respectively. The 2-year overall, progression-free, and local progression-free survival times in stereotactic body radiation therapy alone and combination groups were 78.6% and 80.3% (P = .6583), 49.0% and 42.9% (P = .188), and 71.4% and 80.8% (P = .9661), respectively. The incidence of ≥grade 3 toxicities was 17.9% in stereotactic body radiation therapy alone group and 18.9% in combination group (P = .903). Conclusions: Stereotactic body radiation therapy alone may be a good treatment option for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma who were ineligible for resection or ablation therapies.