External radiation or ablation for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A survival analysis of the SEER database

Berger, Nicholas G.; Hammad, Ahmed Mohammed Ali; Tanious, M.; Younan, George; Miura, John T.; Turaga, Kiran K.; Christians, Kathleen K.; Johnston, Fabian M.; Tsai, Susan; Gamblin, C

doi:10.1016/j.hpb.2016.02.114

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study demonstrated a median overall survival time of 6 months in the BR group, which was shorter than the overall survival times reported in some other studies. 40 – 43 The median overall survival time of the RIT group in our study was 14 months, which was longer than that reported by Mercedes et al 44 but shorter than that reported by Kulik et al 45 …”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

<p>Assessing the Survival Benefit of Surgery and Various Types of Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registries</p>

Shi¹,

Wang²,

Yang³

et al. 2020

JHC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the survival benefit of surgery and radiation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after adjusting for patient-specific and tumor-specific factors. Methods: This study analyzed HCC patients who enrolled in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry between January 2004 and December 2013. Of the 5552 HCC patients, 4597 received surgery and 955 received radiation. Patients who received radiation were further divided into 3 subgroups: 541 who received beam radiation (BR), 197 who received radioactive implants (RI), and 217 who received radioisotopes (RIT). Propensity score weighting analysis derived from generalized boosted models (GBMs) was performed to ensure well-balanced characteristics in all comparison groups. Results: Overall survival rates and HCC-specific survival rates were higher in those receiving surgery compared with those receiving radiotherapy. This was confirmed by Cox proportional hazard regression both before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Before IPTW, the RIT group had a better outcome than the BR group in terms of overall and HCC-specific survival rates, but there was no significant difference between the RI and BR groups. After IPTW, Cox proportional hazard regression demonstrated that both the RIT and RI groups had higher survival rates than the BR group. Conclusion: In HCC patients, surgery was associated with higher survival rates compared with radiotherapy while adjusting for other factors. Among those who received radiotherapy, RIT and RI granted survival benefits.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

<p>Assessing the Survival Benefit of Surgery and Various Types of Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registries</p>

Shi¹,

Wang²,

Yang³

et al. 2020

JHC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[21][22][23] For patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent small liver cancer, a large number of recent studies have shown that the local control rate and overall survival rate of SBRT and radical surgery are similar. [24][25][26][27][28][29] The main limitations of conventional SBRT for liver malignancies are dislocation of the treatment target caused by respiratory movement and acute radiation damage to the liver at low and medium levels. Therefore, how to make SBRT with more accurate image guidance technology is the goal constantly pursued in the era of precision radiotherapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall local control rate can reach 80% to 100%, and the 3‐year survival rate can reach 54% to 70.0% 21‐23 . For patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent small liver cancer, a large number of recent studies have shown that the local control rate and overall survival rate of SBRT and radical surgery are similar 24‐29 . The main limitations of conventional SBRT for liver malignancies are dislocation of the treatment target caused by respiratory movement and acute radiation damage to the liver at low and medium levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CT‐guided liver beacon transponder implantation

Zhang

Guo

et al. 2021

Precision Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the method of CT-guided beacon transponder implantation and precautions after implantation for liver malignant tumor. Methods: CT-guided beacon transponder implantation in three patients with liver malignancies was the first time in China. The operations were performed using Siemens's 16-row large-aperture spiral CT and 17-G guide needles were using for percutaneous liver puncture. Results: All three operations were successfully completed. During the operations, the beacon transponders were successfully implanted at predetermined targets next to the lesion in the liver parenchyma, and there was no obvious bleeding, pain or discomfort. All patients underwent localized CT examination on the fifth day after operations. Only one beacon transponder moved slightly, the remaining eight beacon transponders did not move, and the CT images did not have obvious metal artifacts. After the completion of radiotherapy in three patients, the follow-up CT examination showed no movement of the beacon transponders, and the liver lesions shrank well. However, 3.0 T MRI of the liver showed that the magnetic sensitive artifacts at beacon transponders were more obvious, which affected the observation of local liver tissue. Conclusion: CT-guided liver beacon transponder implantation is safe and feasible. Beacon transponders may move in the liver parenchyma within a short period of time after implantation. Therefore, localized CT examination is recommended to be performed 4 days after the implantation. CT scans after beacon transponder implantation have no obvious metal artifacts. So CT is recommended for follow-up. However, magnetic resonance sensitive artifacts are more obvious when MRI is performed, which will affect the evaluation of local efficacy and detect new small lesions.

show abstract

“…After excluding reviews, letters, editorials, case reports and series, and laboratory studies, 20 studies remained for eligibility assessment. Among them, three studies analyzed data from the SEER database [17][18][19] and two from the NCDB. 12,20 Considering the possibility of overlap due to the same database, we selected one study from studies using each database: the study by Feng et al 19 from studies using data from the SEER database and the study by Rajyaguru et al 12 from studies using data from the NCDB.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of propensity score studies

Eriguchi

Takeda

Tateishi

et al. 2021

Hepatology Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and has shown excellent local control (LC), as has radiofrequency ablation (RFA). As no randomized controlled trial has compared SBRT and RFA for HCC, data from a propensity score matched study (PSMS) are valuable.However, the results varied greatly and depended on composing factors of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging (BCLC-factors) adjusted. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of the studies focusing on BCLC-factors matching. Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane database, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify studies comparing RFA and SBRT using propensity scores. The hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and LC from BCLC-factormatched and -unmatched PSMS were pooled. Heterogeneity between the data from these studies was assessed.Results: Three BCLC-factor-matched studies were identified. Stereotactic body radiotherapy led to comparable OS (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.08; p = 0.24; I 2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity, 0.56) and significantly better LC (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51; p < 0.001; I 2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity, 0.67). We also identified three additional BCLC-factor-unmatched studies (HR of OS, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.65; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%; p for heterogeneity, 0.63). However, considerable heterogeneity was observed for HR of OS between BCLC-factor-matched and -unmatched studies (I 2 = 92.6%; p for heterogeneity, 0.0002). Conclusions:When BCLC-factors were properly adjusted, the results of the metaanalysis revealed equivalent OS and better LC for SBRT compared with RFA. Stereotactic body radiotherapy could be an alternative treatment option for HCC.

show abstract

External radiation or ablation for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A survival analysis of the SEER database

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

<p>Assessing the Survival Benefit of Surgery and Various Types of Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registries</p>

<p>Assessing the Survival Benefit of Surgery and Various Types of Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registries</p>

CT‐guided liver beacon transponder implantation

Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of propensity score studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About