© Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
EDITORIAL
The evolving role of stereotactic body radiotherapy in the management of liver metastasis
Vanessa TY Yeung, FHKCR, FHKAM (Radiology)
Department of Clinical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
Corresponding author: Dr Vanessa TY Yeung (yty392@ha.org.hk)
The liver is a common metastatic site for colorectal,
lung, and breast cancers. In addition to palliative
chemotherapy, there have been advances in
therapeutic options for liver-directed therapies,
which can prolong patient survival and may be
curative. Since the 1960s, hepatic metastasectomy
has provided a glimmer of hope to patients with
cancer.1 A study in the 1990s revealed a 5-year
survival rate of 37% in colorectal patients who
underwent liver resection for treatment of one to
three liver metastases.2 Improvements in surgical
technique, patient selection, and systemic treatment
have allowed liver resection to achieve 5-year
survival rates of >50%, compared with approximately
5% for patients who receive palliative chemotherapy
alone.3
Currently, resectability is defined as the
ability to perform complete (R0) resection with
adequate preservation of the future liver remnant.
The presence of unresectable extrahepatic disease
remains a contraindication to liver surgery. For
patients who are not good surgical candidates,
attractive options include non-surgical liver-directed
therapies such as stereotactic body radiotherapy
(SBRT), selective internal radiation therapy,
transarterial chemoembolisation, hepatic arterial
infusion therapy, and radiofrequency ablation.4
Over the years, the role of SBRT in the
management of liver metastases has considerably
evolved; it is now considered safe and effective
therapy. Additionally, SBRT provides excellent
local control of liver metastases and carries a
comparatively low risk of treatment-related toxicity.5
Patient selection for SBRT is important.
Desirable patient characteristics include good
performance status with limited disease burden
and adequate non-irradiated liver reserve (≥700 cc).
Moreover, there is a need for caution regarding
the irradiation of liver metastases adjacent to the
luminal gastrointestinal tract, which could result in
bowel perforation.6 For better outcomes, desirable
patient characteristics include limited extrahepatic
disease, lesion size ≤3 cm, and fewer than three
hepatic lesions.4 Stereotactic body radiotherapy
generally provides favourable local control of
hepatic metastases; most authors report achieving approximately 80% local control at 2 years if higher
biologically equivalent doses are delivered.5 6 7 8
Stereotactic body radiotherapy is administered
using a linear accelerator, which precisely delivers
high-dose ionising radiation in the form of mega-voltage
photons; the treatment is administered in
one to five fractions within 14 elapsed days. The
dose closely conforms to the target, leading to rapid
dose fall-off outside of the target. Usually, SBRT
doses are prescribed to the 80% isodose line, which
covers at least 95% of the planned target volume.8
Nevertheless, irradiation of the liver can result in
radiotherapy-induced liver diseases, which may lead
to liver failure and even death, particularly in cases
of re-irradiation. In terms of radiobiology, the liver
obeys the parallel architecture model; thus, the risk
of radiotherapy-induced liver disease is generally
proportional to the mean dose of radiation delivered
to normal liver tissue. This risk can be minimised
by ensuring high accuracy in respiratory motion
management via four-dimensional computed
tomography, in combination with active breathing
control, abdominal compression, or respiratory
gating. On-boarding imaging must be conducted
before SBRT to allow for the immediate correction
of patient positioning.9
In this issue of the Hong Kong Medical Journal, Choi et al10 conducted a retrospective study of 31
patients with liver metastases treated by SBRT
between January 2012 and December 2017. Actuarial
in-field local control rates at 1, 2, and 3 years after
SBRT were 93%, 55%, and 42%, respectively. The
median survival was 32.9 months; the 1-year, 2-year,
and 3-year actuarial survival rates were 89.6%,
57.1%, and 46.2%, respectively. The treatment was
well-tolerated. The authors concluded that patients
receiving post-SBRT chemotherapy had significantly
longer overall survival, highlighting the need for
multimodal treatment with effective systemic therapy,
rather than monotherapy with either method alone.
This real-world evidence supports the evolving role
of SBRT in the management of liver metastases in
Hong Kong. There is increasing clinical interest in
the use of SBRT to manage liver metastases; this new
direction is accompanied by many challenges and
questions. Future prospective studies may shed light on the most effective SBRT treatment sequence,
key factors concerning patient selection, and
optimal systemic treatment (in combination with
immunotherapy and chemotherapy) for patients
with liver metastasis.
Author contributions
The author was solely responsible for drafting of the
manuscript, approved the final version for publication, and
takes responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
Funding/support
This editorial has received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration
The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Scheele J, Stang R, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Paul M. Resection of colorectal liver metastases. World J Surg
1995;19:59-71. Crossref
2. Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun RL, Brennan MF, Blumgart LH. Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic
resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001
consecutive cases. Ann Surg 1999;230:309-18. Crossref
3. House MG, Ito H, Gönen M, et al. Survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: trends in
outcomes for 1,600 patients during two decades at a single
institution. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:744-52. Crossref
4. Cervantes A, Adam R, Roselló S, et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis,
treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2023;34:10-32. Crossref
5. Chang DT, Swaminath A, Kozak M, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for colorectal liver metastases: a pooled
analysis. Cancer 2011;117:4060-9. Crossref
6. Das IJ, Dawes SL, Dominello MM, et al. Quality and safety considerations in stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy: an ASTRO safety white paper
update. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022;12:e253-68. Crossref
7. Petrelli F, Comito T, Barni S, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases: a
systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2018;129:427-34. Crossref
8. John RG, Ho F, Appalanaido GK, et al. Can radiotherapy finally “go live” in the management of liver metastases?
Hepatoma Res 2020;6:56. Crossref
9. McPartlin A, Swaminath A, Wang R, et al. Long-term outcomes of phase 1 and 2 studies of SBRT for hepatic
colorectal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2017;99:388-95. Crossref
10. Choi CK, Ho CH, Wong MY, et al. Efficacy, toxicities, and prognostic factors of stereotactic body radiotherapy
for unresectable liver metastases. Hong Kong Med J
2023;29:105-11. Crossref