Overall Survival Among Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With External Beam Radiation Therapy: Individual Patient Data Outcomes From a Multinational Cohort

Author(s): Andrew M. Moon, MD, MPH1,2; Ted K. Yanagihara, MD2,3; Laura A. Dawson, MD4,5; Jeong Il Yu, MD6; Theodore S. Lawrence, MD7; Tae Hyun Kim, MD8; Michael Yan, MD4,5; Hiromitsu Iwata, MD9; Nima Nabavizadeh, MD10; Smith Apisarnthanarax, MD11; Emma M. Dunne, MD12; Michael I. Lock, MD13; Michael D. Chuong, MD14; Chi Leung Chiang, MD15; Marta Scorsetti, MD16,17; Norio Katoh, MD18; Shirin Sioshansi, MD19; Kazushi Numata, MD20; Howard Yu-hao Liu, MD21; Hideki Iwamoto, MD22; Masaru Wakatsuki, MD23; Yixing Chen, MD24; Erqi L. Pollom, MD25; Eleni Gkika, MD26,27; Salma K. Jabbour, MD28; Pablo Munoz-Schuffenegger, MD29; Debnarayan Dutta, MD30; Carla Hajj, MD31; Masayuki Ueno, MD32,33; Christopher L. Hallemeier, MD34; Aharon M. Feldman, MD35; Alejandra Méndèz Romero, MD36; Xianming Tan, MD2,37; Meritxell Molla, MD38; Joel E. Tepper, MD, FASCO3; Ferran Torres, MD, PhD39; Maria Reig, MD, PhD40; for the EBRT Collaboration Group;
Source: DOI: 10.1200/JCO-25-02399

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

This was not randomized, so it did not establish equivalence between external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and resection or ablation, but these are strong real-world data supporting EBRT as a frontline local option when standard curative approaches are not feasible. The early-stage, treatment-naïve outcomes make it hard to keep thinking of RT as just a salvage or bridge strategy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we likely underutilize this therapy.

PURPOSE

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has gained delayed acceptance as a recommended first-line treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), given limited evidence that it improves overall survival (OS). We analyzed individual patient data (IPD) from an international cohort to assess OS among patients with HCC treated with EBRT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of publications that assessed EBRT, met prespecified technical standards for HCC, and reported OS (search date December 15, 2022). Corresponding authors were invited to submit IPD for the study. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to determine OS and restricted mean survival time (RMST) stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and treatment status (ie, treatment-naïve and experienced). We performed random effects Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess clinical characteristics associated with OS.

RESULTS

Data were provided on 4,913 patients treated with EBRT with a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. The median OS was 6.8 years (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.7) for BCLC-0 and 4.6 years (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.1) for BCLC-A. Among treatment-naïve patients, the median OS was not reached (95% CI, 8.6 to not reached) for BCLC-0 and was 5.4 years (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7) for BCLC-A. In multivariable models, more advanced BCLC stage, higher tumor burden, worse performance status, and Child-Pugh class B or C were associated with a higher risk of mortality. Ablative radiation dose and more recent year of treatment were associated with a reduced risk of death.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study represents the largest multinational cohort of patients with HCC treated with EBRT. OS outcomes with EBRT for very early- and early-stage HCC appear to be comparable with resection, thermal ablation, and other ablative locoregional therapies. These data support the inclusion of EBRT in the BCLC HCC clinical decision-making process.

Author Affiliations

1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; 2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; 4Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 7Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; 8Center for Proton Therapy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea; 9Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City University West Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan; 10Department of Radiation Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; 11Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 12Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer—Vancouver, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 13Department of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada; 14Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL; 15Department of Clinical Oncology, Centre of Cancer Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongChina,; 16Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 17Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; 18Department of Radiation Oncology, Hokkaido University Faculty of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan; 19Department of Radiation Oncology, Brown University Health Cancer Institute, Providence, RI; 20Department of Gastroenterology, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan; 21Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 22Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Japan; 23QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology (QST), Chiba, Japan; 24Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; 25Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; 26Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; 27Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, University Hospital Bonn, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; 28Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ; 29Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Hematology—Oncology, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; 30Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, India; 31Radiation Oncology Department, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 32Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan; 33Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; 34Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; 35Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI; 36Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 37Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; 38Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 39Biostatistics Unit, Medical School, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 40Liver Cancer Unit, Liver Unit, Hospital Clínic, BCLC Group—IDIBAPS, CIBEREHD, Barcelona University, Barcelona, Spain

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Prophylactic Radiation Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Patients With High-Risk Asymptomatic Bone Metastases: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial

This article was recommended by Dr. Carrascosa. The study is promising, but the number of patients is small. Another thing to consider is the use of a bone enhancing agent (only 50% of patients had it on both arms). The authors recommended larger trials, which may help add a sub-analysis to assess the role of bone enhancing agents.

Read More »

Phase II Randomized Study of Salvage Radiation Therapy Plus Enzalutamide or Placebo for High-Risk Prostate-Specific Antigen Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: The SALV-ENZA Trial

Although not a practice changing study, this study makes a few points that may be seen in future studies.  In the setting of biochem-recurrent prostate cancer after RP, novel anti-androgen agents may replace ADT in combination with salvage XRT as they appear to be active and less toxic than traditional ADT.   Low/Intermediate risk patients are likely of benefit with median PSA at accrual of 0.3 in this study, not unlike other similar studies.   The role of combination anti-hormone therapy + salvage radiation seems to be solidifying.

Read More »