Next Article in Journal
Application of Machine Learning in Predicting Hepatic Metastasis or Primary Site in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Anti-Mullerian Hormone Levels, Antral Follicle Counts, and Mean Ovarian Volumes in Chemotherapy-Induced Amenorrhea among Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Clinical Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 30
Issue 10
10.3390/curroncol30100667
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century

by
Sara Mheid
1,
Stefan Allen
2,
Sylvia S. W. Ng
3,
William A. Hall
4,
Nina N. Sanford
5,
Todd A. Aguilera
5,
Ahmed M. Elamir
5,
Rana Bahij
6,
Martijn P. W. Intven
7,
Ganesh Radhakrishna
8,
Issa Mohamad
9,
Jeremy De Leon
10,
Hendrick Tan
11,12,
Shirley Lewis
13,
Cihan Gani
14,
Teo Stanecu
1,
Veronica Dell’Acqua
15 and
Ali Hosni
1,*
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
3
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX 75235, USA
6
Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark
7
Department of Radiotherapy, Division Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
8
Department of Radiotherapy, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
9
Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan
10
GenesisCare, Alexandria, NSW 2015, Australia
11
Department of Radiation Oncology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, WA 6150, Australia
12
GenesisCare, Perth, WA 6150, Australia
13
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, India
14
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
15
Medical Affairs and Clinical Research, Linac-Based RT, Elekta Milan, 20864 Lombardy, Italy
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(10), 9230-9243; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100667
Submission received: 1 August 2023 / Revised: 14 September 2023 / Accepted: 30 September 2023 / Published: 19 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Gastrointestinal Oncology)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of liver metastasis has been widely studied and has demonstrated favorable local control outcomes. However, several predictive factors play a crucial role in the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy, such as the number and size (volume) of metastatic liver lesions, the primary tumor site (histology), molecular biomarkers (e.g., KRAS and TP53 mutation), the use of systemic therapy prior to SBRT, the radiation dose, and the use of advanced technology and organ motion management during SBRT. These prognostic factors need to be considered when clinical trials are designed to evaluate the efficacy of SBRT for liver metastases.
Keywords:
liver; SBRT; oligometastases

1. Introduction

The liver is a common site of metastasis for several malignancies, most commonly from the primary tumor of the colorectum, breast, lung, stomach, esophagus, pancreas, and melanoma origin [1,2,3]. The most common source of liver metastasis is colorectal cancer (CRC), and up to 50% of these patients develop metastasis to the liver [3]. Additionally, an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015) showed that the overall incidence rate of liver metastases was 22.66 per 1,000,000 individuals [4].
In the past decades, local treatment of the liver oligometastasis has become increasingly common. The term “oligometastasis” was coined by Weichselbaum and Hellman in 1995 as a state between the absence of metastasis and the diffuse spread of disease [5]. In 2011, Weichselbaum and Hellman defined oligometastasis as metastasis limited in number and distribution as per standard diagnostic imaging scans [6,7]. In 2020, ESTRO-ASTRO published a consensus document defining oligometastatic disease as “1–5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable” [8].
Surgical resection, whenever feasible, is the mainstay treatment for medically operable patients with resectable liver oligometastases [9]. For those with liver metastases not suitable for surgical resection, localized treatments such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can be considered [1,10,11].
The Deutschen Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie (DEGRO) defined SBRT as a dedicated form of external beam radiation therapy with specific physical and biological characteristics. It is marked by a sharp transition in radiation dose outside the treated tumor while increasing the dose inside the specified tumor volume. This treatment modality is combined with image guidance techniques and advanced motion management to yield effective local treatment for liver oligometastases with a relatively low toxicity rate [11,12,13]. The biological principle behind SBRT is believed to trigger specific radiobiological pathways, enhancing both localized tumor control and systemic treatment outcomes [7]. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the local control (LC) following SBRT for liver metastases.

2. Importance of LC of Liver Metastases (Mortality, Widespread Progression and Morbidity)

The LC for liver metastasis following SBRT is defined as a lack of progression of the metastatic liver lesion that was treated with SBRT (i.e., any response or stable disease). Achieving LC of liver oligometastases with SBRT has been associated with improved overall survival (OS) [11,14,15]. Klement et al. reported the outcomes of 388 patients with 500 metastatic lesions (lung: n = 209, liver: n = 291) treated with SBRT. Their findings suggested that achieving LC using SBRT improved OS in CRC patients with lung or liver metastases and a projected OS estimate of more than 12 months [16]. Kok et al. also reported that a higher dose of SBRT (BED10 > 100 Gy10) significantly improved LC of liver metastases (compared to lower dose SBRT ≤ 100 Gy10), which resulted in significant improvement of OS (85% vs. 48%, p = 0.007) [17]. Furthermore, the study conducted by McPartlin et al. demonstrated similar significant findings, indicating an association between improved OS and LC of targeted liver disease (p = 0.001) [11]. More recently, Cao et al. published their multi-institutional retrospective review of 1700 extracranial oligometastases in 1033 patients (25.2% non-small cell lung cancer, 22.7% CRC, 12.8% prostate cancer, and 8.1% breast cancer) [18]. Patients who experienced local failure within six months of SBRT for any oligometastasis had a 3.6-fold higher risk of mortality and 2.7-fold higher risk of wide-spread progression in comparison to those who maintained the local control of treated oligometastasis (p < 0.001) [18]. Regardless of the specific time point within the 3-year post-SBRT period that was analyzed, similar trends and relationships between LC duration and outcomes were consistently observed.
In an analysis of morbidity associated with locally uncontrolled liver metastases, several clinical and laboratory signs were reported, including deterioration of liver function test (79.2%), liver failure (10.4%), jaundice (28.6%), cachexia (17.3%), hepatic encephalopathy (9.1%), abdominal distension (8.7%), hepatomegaly (11.3%), pain (10.4%), infectious disease (5.6%), respiratory distress (7.8%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (1.3%) [19]. On the other hand, modern technology-based liver SBRT is well tolerated with minimal occurrence of treatment-related adverse effects. Acute toxicity, characterized by occasional transient deterioration in liver function tests, was described in other studies [13,20,21]. Furthermore, several studies reported no or very rare incidence of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) [2,20,22]. According to Andratschke et al., less than 1% of cases experienced grade 3 acute toxicity [12]. In a systematic review, Mutsaers et al. demonstrated well-preserved post-liver SBRT quality of life (QOL) [23]. Mendez Romero et al. prospectively assessed the impact of SBRT on the QOL of patients with primary and metastatic liver tumors and found no statistically significant decline in mean QOL over six months [24].

3. Comparison of LC of Liver Metastases Following SBRT and Other Ablative Therapies

It is important to note that there are limited randomized data comparing SBRT to other local modalities for the treatment of liver metastases. Several retrospective and prospective studies reported favorable LC rates following SBRT for limited liver metastases [2,15,20,21,22,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Table 1 summarizes key retrospective and prospective studies published in the last two decades. Petrelli et al. published a systematic review in 2018, including 18 studies of SBRT to liver metastasis, and reported one- and two-year LC rates of 67% and 59.3%, respectively [40].
Jackson et al. compared the outcomes of patients with liver metastases from various malignancies treated with either RFA (n = 112) or SBRT (n = 170). In lesions measuring ≥ 2 cm, SBRT was associated with improved freedom from local progression, with LC rates reaching 96% and 88.2% at one and two years, respectively, whereas RFA exhibited lower rates of 74.7% and 60.6% at the respective time points [41]. Another retrospective study compared treatment outcomes of RFA (n = 268) vs. SBRT (n = 62) for CRC liver metastases and showed that for tumors > 2 cm, SBRT demonstrated significantly better LC compared to the RFA group (p < 0.001) [26]. In 2019, a meta-analysis and systematic review compared RFA vs. SBRT for liver malignancies and included three studies for liver metastases. LC rate at two years was higher in the SBRT group (n = 909) compared to the RFA group (n = 1329) (83.6% vs. 60%, p < 0.001) [42]. A single institutional retrospective study by Franzese et al. compared the outcomes of patients with liver metastases from CRC treated with either MWA or SBRT. The one-year LC was higher in the SBRT group compared to the MWA group in tumors greater than 3 cm in size (91% vs. 84%, p = 0.02) [43].

4. Radiographic Evaluation of Local Control Following SBRT for Liver Metastases

The modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) is an updated framework for assessing tumor response to treatment that incorporates a comprehensive evaluation of treatment response in patients with solid tumors [44]. Following high-dose radiation therapy to the liver, CT radiographic changes with distinct appearances can be observed [45,46]. Herfarth et al. categorized these changes into three types based on the timing after SBRT. Type I was observed during the initial 1–2 months, with a hypodense appearance on portal-venous CT images and an isodense appearance on delayed contrast CT images. Type II occurred approximately 3–4 months after SBRT, with the irradiated zone exhibiting hyperdensity on delayed images. Finally, type III was observed at approximately six months post-SBRT and beyond, with the more developed area becoming either isodense or hyperdense on the portal-venous phase and persistently hyperdense on the late contrast phase [45,46].
Functional MRI images such as diffusion-weighted imaging have been shown to be a valuable tool for differentiating between various pathological manifestations, including edema, necrosis, hemorrhage, recurrence, and cystic changes [47,48]. Solanki et al. and Stinauer et al. suggested that 18F-FDG PET-CT is a useful tool for evaluating the response to SBRT in liver metastases, particularly when CT and MR imaging features present difficulties in interpretation [49,50].
Following SBRT for liver metastases, some tumors exhibit minimal changes in enhancement and signal intensities and insignificant changes in size, especially when imaging is conducted within a short period (i.e., <3 months) post-treatment. Thus, more extensive follow-up imaging studies may be necessary to accurately evaluate the response of liver metastases to SBRT [47]. Aitken et al. recommended follow-up imaging at three-month intervals during the first year and at six-month intervals thereafter [51]. Similarly, Herfarth et al. conducted imaging follow-up five to ten weeks after SBRT, with subsequent scans scheduled at intervals of three to five months [46].

5. Factors Affecting LC Following SBRT for Liver Metastases

5.1. Tumor-Related Factors

5.1.1. Primary Tumor Type

Primary tumor origin and histology have been shown to impact outcomes amongst patients who received SBRT for liver metastases [12,52,53] (Table 2). The German group analyzed 474 patients with liver oligometastases from various histologies. Primary tumor origin was a significant predictor of LC. Metastases from CRC had a significantly worse LC rate at one year (67%) compared to breast cancer (91%), non-small cell lung cancer (88%), or other histologies (80%) [12]. Similarly, Ahmed et al. analyzed 372 liver metastases from various primary cancers following SBRT and reported significantly poorer LC rates for liver metastases of CRC origin, with one- and two-year LC rates of 79% and 59% for CRC lesions, compared to 100% for non-CRC lesions (p = 0.02) [54,55].
The impact of primary tumor type on LC of liver metastases after SBRT extends beyond the origin of the tumor and histologic subtype to the molecular phenotype of the cancer. Hong et al. analyzed the association of genetic alterations with LC in 89 patients (CRC being the most common primary) treated with proton-based liver-directed SBRT. They reported lower LC for lesions with KRAS mutation (one-year LC of 43% compared to 72%, p = 0.02) and reduced LC rates in cases with both KRAS and TP53 mutations (one-year LC of 20% compared to 69%, p = 0.001) [37,68].

5.1.2. Number, Size, and Volume of Metastatic Liver Lesions

Joo et al. reported that the number of treated liver lesions (one, two, or three) was a significant predictive factor for intrahepatic tumor control. Their findings suggest that an increasing number of treated sites was associated with a higher risk of reduced intrahepatic control [69]. Several trials had set a maximum tumor diameter of <6 cm for high-dose liver SBRT [2,15,25,70,71]. Doi et al. retrospectively reviewed the records of 24 patients with 39 metastatic liver tumors from CRC who were treated with SBRT. On multivariable analysis, a maximum tumor diameter ≤3 cm was significantly associated with better LC (p = 0.03) [72]. Similarly, Rusthoven et al. reported that for lesions with a maximum diameter ≤ 3 cm, 2-year LC was 100% compared to 77% for lesions > 3 cm (p = 0.015) [2]. Andratschke et al. reported that smaller treated metastatic tumor volume, as observed in the study where the GTV volume ranged from a minimum of 0.6 cc to a maximum of 699 cc (median volume of 27 cc), and the PTV volume ranged from a minimum of 4.5 cc to a maximum of 1074.0 cc (median volume of 71.3 cc), were found to be a significant predictor for LC (p < 0.001) [12]. Furthermore, Flamarique et al. reported that tumor volumes > 30 cc correlated with worsened two-year LC rates (90% vs. 34.5%) (p = 0.005) [73].

5.2. Treatment-Related Factors

5.2.1. Prior Liver-Directed Local Therapies

There is evidence to suggest that SBRT is a safe and well-tolerated treatment option with excellent LC rates for liver metastases that have been previously treated with other liver-directed therapy, including surgery, ablation, and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) [74,75]. Moon et al. conducted a prospective single-arm trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of liver SBRT in patients with or without prior liver-directed therapy. The study included a total of 30 patients, among whom 63% had liver metastases (47% had received prior liver-directed therapies, which included liver resection, TACE, and RFA). Out of the 30 patients, 28 underwent SBRT to a new lesion, and 2 received SBRT due to either a local recurrence or a sub-optimal response following TACE. The study did not find a statistically significant difference in LC between those who had previously undergone liver-directed therapies and those who had not (73% and 86% at one year, respectively, p = 0.70) [75].

5.2.2. Pre-SBRT Systemic Therapy

The surviving tumor cells, after systemic therapy, may develop a better ability to repair DNA damage, which results in a more radioresistant phenotype [52,76]. This may explain why metastatic cancer that was previously treated with adjuvant systemic therapy tends to be more aggressive [52,77]. Klement et al. analyzed 623 liver metastases in 464 patients who underwent SBRT treatment from any histology-proven primary solid tumor [52]. They found that patients who had received chemotherapy before SBRT had significantly reduced LC at two years compared to those who did not (58% vs. 83%, p = 0.04) [52]. Sheikh et al. conducted a multi-institutional retrospective analysis, which included 235 patients with a total of 381 CRC oligometastatic lesions treated with SBRT. On multivariable analysis, they found that receiving any systemic therapy before SBRT was linked to an increased risk of progression (p < 0.001) [55]. Furthermore, Andratschke et al. reported that patients who received systemic therapy before SBRT had worse LC rates compared to those who did not [12]. It is important to consider multiple factors when interpreting this correlation, as patients who received systemic therapy first might have had a higher burden of the disease. Future research employing novel biomarkers of disease burden (e.g., ctDNA analysis) is warranted.

5.2.3. SBRT Dose

Multiple prospective phase I/II trials for liver metastases have shown two-year LC rates ranging from 60% to 100% with different radiation dose and fractionation schedules. A phase II study by Scorsetti et al. treated 61 patients with liver metastases from different primary histologies with a dose of 75 Gy in three fractions showed a three-year LC of 78%, with no significant difference in LC based on histology (CRC vs. other) and size of lesion (>3 cm vs. <3 cm) when ultra-high dose SBRT was used [71]. For lesions measuring <3 cm, an ablative dose of 60 Gy delivered over three fractions yielded LC rates of 95% and 92% at one and two years, respectively [2]. For tumors measuring <6 cm, a higher ablative dose of 75 Gy given over three fractions achieved an LC rate of 94% [15]. A phase I/II dose escalation SBRT study by Rusthoven et al. showed two-year LC rates of 92% [2]. McPartlin et al. showed lower LC rates of 50% and 26% at one year and four years, respectively, in CRC liver metastases, likely due to lower SBRT dose used (median, minimum SBRT dose was 37.6 Gy (range, 22.7–62.1 Gy) in 6 fractions) [11].
Retrospective and modeling studies have shown improved LC with a high BED10 dose for liver metastases [78]. A single-institution retrospective study by Kok et al. showed a two-year LC of 90% with BED10 > 100 Gy10 vs. 60% with BED10 < 100 Gy10 [17]. Similar results were shown by Mahadevan et al. with BED10 > 100 Gy10 (wot-year LC 77.2% vs. 59.6%) in 427 patients with liver metastases [79]. Ohri et al. described better LC outcomes with BED10 > 100 Gy10, and the tumor control probability (TCP) modeling showed two-year LC increased to 76% at BED10 of 100 Gy10 and 90% with BED10 of 180 Gy10 [80]. While higher radiation doses could lead to better LC, it should be recognized that there is a tendency for high radiation doses to be prescribed for small tumors.
While the literature on single fraction SBRT is limited and early studies included both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver metastases, more recent studies of single fraction SBRT for liver metastases with dose escalation to 35–40 Gy demonstrated two-year LC of 100% and four-year LC of 96.6% with no reported grade 3 toxicity [38,81]. Folkert et al. used a 35–40 Gy single fraction and applied the following constraints: max point dose 14 Gy, 12.4 Gy, 15.4 Gy, and 18.4 Gy to the spinal cord, stomach, and duodenum, jejunum, and colon, respectively. Furthermore, 700 mL of uninvolved liver received <9.1 Gy [38]. The results from these studies suggest that higher BED10 delivered in a single fraction can provide excellent LC with acceptable toxicities. Prospective randomized phase III trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of single fraction ultra-high dose SBRT.
Despite the accumulating evidence that showed the association between SBRT dose and LC of liver metastases, it is not always possible in clinical practice to treat all liver metastases with very high dose SBRT mainly due to the proximity of the tumor to the central biliary tree or luminal structures (e.g., small/large bowel, stomach and duodenum). When selecting high-dose SBRT, it is also important to consider the volume of the uninvolved liver (i.e., whole liver minus gross tumor volume [GTV]) and the pre-SBRT liver function to avoid potential liver toxicity [2,11,12,73,82].

5.2.4. Advanced Organ Motion Management

Organ motion management is critical in liver SBRT in order to safely deliver ablative doses to the target while limiting the volume of normal tissue irradiated [83,84]. During liver SBRT, it has been reported that the internal motion of tumors can reach up to 39.5 mm (mean 17.6 mm) [85]. Various motion management mechanisms can be used, such as fiducial markers, abdominal compression, breath hold techniques, gating, and tumor tracking [83,86,87]. Imaging studies for motion measurement and evaluation include fluoroscopy, 4D CT, 4D cone-beam computer tomography scans, 2D cine MR, and 4D MR imaging [1,88,89,90]. Several studies have demonstrated that the use of advanced motion management techniques in liver SBRT is associated with improved LC of liver metastases [12,91]. In 2014, a report was published highlighting the importance of adequate respiratory motion management in SBRT for oligometastatic CRC patients. Results showed that metastases in moving organs (e.g., liver) exhibited an LC of 53% at 1 year compared to 79% for lymph nodes (p = 0.01) [92]. Klement et al. also reported that simple motion management techniques (such as free breathing and abdominal compression) predicted significantly lower tumor control probability [52].

6. Future Directions

The use of SBRT in the management of liver oligometastases has shown promising results. However, there are still many areas that require further research and development in order to optimize its use and effectiveness. One future direction in the management of liver oligometastases using SBRT includes the use of combination therapies, such as SBRT in combination with immunotherapy or targeted therapies, to improve the outcomes. Data from various types of cancer suggest that the combination of immunotherapy and SBRT is well-tolerated in metastatic disease [10,93,94,95].
The development of advanced imaging and planning technologies can improve the accuracy and precision of SBRT delivery. This includes the use of real-time imaging and tracking, as well as the integration of machine learning algorithms to improve treatment planning and response evaluation. MR-guided radiotherapy is a cutting-edge and rapidly developing technology that allows for improved visualization of tumors and surrounding normal tissue during treatment, resulting in highly precise treatment delivery, even with moving targets. Online adaptive SBRT planning may reduce the risk of radiation-related toxicities and increase the dose delivered to the tumor [96]. Rosenberg et al. found that 75% of metastatic liver lesions (44% of which were CRC metastases) showed no local progression following MR-guided liver SBRT (median dose 50 Gy in five fractions) at a median follow-up of 21 months [97]. Given the promising outcomes observed in various studies [89,97,98,99,100,101,102], the MAESTRO phase II prospective trial is designed to evaluate the potential benefits of adaptive MR-guided SBRT compared to conventional SBRT administered at a standard linear accelerator for patients with liver metastases [103].
Proton beam therapy is another radiation therapy modality that allows more liver sparing given the rapid dose falloff beyond the edge of the target [104]. Hong et al. studied 89 patients with liver metastases from various types of cancer were enrolled. Of these patients, 38.2% had primary CRC. The median tumor size was 2.5 cm, and the radiation dose administered ranged from 30 to 50 GyE, delivered in five sessions. The one-year and three-year LC rates for the entire group were 71.9% and 61.2%, respectively [37]. Furthermore, Colbert et al. published their experience treating five patients with right hemi-liver proton therapy for bilobar colorectal liver metastases who were ineligible for second-stage hepatectomy; 67.5 cobalt gray equivalents in 15 daily fractions of proton therapy, using a deep inspiration breath-hold technique, was given to the right hemiliver with concurrent capecitabine. Local control (radiographic partial or complete response) was evident in all patients except for one who was treated with a BED of 89.6 Gy. In all patients, radiation therapy was well tolerated without substantial toxicity [105].
Similarly, carbon ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) offers the ability to achieve precise dose localization through the Bragg peak [106]. Shiba et al. reviewed 102 patients with oligometastatic liver disease who had received C-ion RT between May 2016 and June 2020. The median dose was 60 Gy (58–76 Gy), and the median tumor size was 27 mm (7–90 mm). Local control rates at one and two years were 90.5% and 78%, respectively, and none of the patients experienced grade 3 or higher acute or late toxicities [106].
Another evolving area of research involves the use of selective radiation dose boosting to improve tumor control, particularly in combination with functional imaging biomarkers (e.g., fluorodeoxyglucose, fluoromisonidazole, or other PET radiotracers). This approach could help overcome radioresistance associated with tumor metabolic activity or hypoxia [68]. Building on this concept, Popple et al. studied the effect on tumor control probability (TCP) of increasing the dose to hypoxic areas and reported that a boost dose (ranging from 120% to 150% of the initial dose) increased TCP [107].

7. Conclusions

The utilization of SBRT for the treatment of liver oligometastases has demonstrated favorable LC outcomes. However, several factors influence the efficacy of SBRT, such as the number and size (volume) of liver lesions, the primary tumor type (origin/histology/phenotype), the use of systemic therapy prior to SBRT, the radiation dose, the use of advanced technology and organ motion management during SBRT. These factors need to be considered when clinical trials are designed to evaluate the efficacy of SBRT for liver metastases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M., A.H., S.A., S.S.W.N., W.A.H., N.N.S., T.A.A., R.B., M.P.W.I., G.R., I.M., J.D.L., H.T., S.L., T.S., C.G. and V.D.; writing—original draft, S.M., A.H., S.A., S.S.W.N., W.A.H., N.N.S., T.A.A., R.B., M.P.W.I., G.R., I.M., J.D.L., H.T., S.L., T.S., C.G., V.D. and A.M.E.; writing—review and editing, S.M., A.H., S.A., S.S.W.N., W.A.H., N.N.S., T.A.A., R.B., M.P.W.I., G.R., I.M., J.D.L., H.T., S.L., T.S., V.D., C.G. and A.M.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

This study did not report any data.

Conflicts of Interest

Ali Hosni: non-financial leadership, DSC of liver TSG at ELEKTA MRL consortium.

References

  1. Almaghrabi, M.Y.; Supiot, S.; Paris, F.; Mahé, M.-A.; Rio, E. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for abdominal oligometastases: A biological and clinical review. Radiat. Oncol. 2012, 7, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rusthoven, K.E.; Kavanagh, B.D.; Cardenes, H.; Stieber, V.W.; Burri, S.H.; Feigenberg, S.J.; Chidel, M.A.; Pugh, T.J.; Franklin, W.; Kane, M.; et al. Multi-institutional phase I/II trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 1572–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Adam, R.; De Gramont, A.; Figueras, J.; Guthrie, A.; Kokudo, N.; Kunstlinger, F.; Loyer, E.; Poston, G.; Rougier, P.; Rubbia-Brandt, L.; et al. The Oncosurgery Approach to Managing Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: A Multidisciplinary International Consensus. Oncologist 2012, 17, 1225–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Horn, S.R.; Stoltzfus, K.C.; Lehrer, E.J.; Dawson, L.A.; Tchelebi, L.; Gusani, N.J.; Sharma, N.K.; Chen, H.; Trifiletti, D.M.; Zaorsky, N.G. Epidemiology of liver metastases. Cancer Epidemiol. 2020, 67, 101760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hellman, S.; Weichselbaum, R.R. Oligometastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 1995, 13, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Weichselbaum, R.R.; Hellman, S. Oligometastases revisited. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 8, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, H.; Louie, A.V.; Higginson, D.S.; Palma, D.A.; Colaco, R.; Sahgal, A. Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Management of Oligometastatic Disease. Clin. Oncol. (R Coll. Radiol.) 2020, 32, 713–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lievens, Y.; Guckenberger, M.; Gomez, D.; Hoyer, M.; Iyengar, P.; Kindts, I.; Romero, A.M.; Nevens, D.; Palma, D.; Park, C.; et al. Defining oligometastatic disease from a radiation oncology perspective: An ESTRO-ASTRO consensus document. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 148, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kanas, G.P.; Taylor, A.; Primrose, J.N.; Langeberg, W.J.; Kelsh, M.A.; Mowat, F.S.; Alexander, D.D.; Choti, M.A.; Poston, G. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: Review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 4, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Robin, T.P.; Raben, D.; Schefter, T.E. A Contemporary Update on the Role of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Liver Metastases in the Evolving Landscape of Oligometastatic Disease Management. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 28, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McPartlin, A.; Swaminath, A.; Wang, R.; Pintilie, M.; Brierley, J.; Kim, J.; Ringash, J.; Wong, R.; Dinniwell, R.; Craig, T.; et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Phase 1 and 2 Studies of SBRT for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2017, 99, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Andratschke, N.; Alheid, H.; Allgäuer, M.; Becker, G.; Blanck, O.; Boda-Heggemann, J.; Brunner, T.; Duma, M.; Gerum, S.; Guckenberger, M.; et al. The SBRT database initiative of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO): Patterns of care and outcome analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver oligometastases in 474 patients with 623 metastases. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barry, A.; McPartlin, A.; Lindsay, P.; Wang, L.; Brierley, J.; Kim, J.; Ringash, J.; Wong, R.; Dinniwell, R.; Craig, T.; et al. Dosimetric analysis of liver toxicity after liver metastasis stereotactic body radiation therapy. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2017, 7, e331–e337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Simmonds, P.C.; Primrose, J.N.; Colquitt, J.L.; Garden, O.J.; Poston, G.J.; Rees, M. Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review of published studies. Br. J. Cancer 2006, 94, 982–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Scorsetti, M.; Arcangeli, S.; Tozzi, A.; Comito, T.; Alongi, F.; Navarria, P.; Mancosu, P.; Reggiori, G.; Fogliata, A.; Torzilli, G.; et al. Is Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy an Attractive Option for Unresectable Liver Metastases? A Preliminary Report from a Phase 2 Trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2013, 86, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Klement, R.J.; Abbasi-Senger, N.; Adebahr, S.; Alheid, H.; Allgaeuer, M.; Becker, G.; Blanck, O.; Boda-Heggemann, J.; Brunner, T.; Duma, M.; et al. The impact of local control on overall survival after stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver and lung metastases from colorectal cancer: A combined analysis of 388 patients with 500 metastases. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kok, E.N.D.; Jansen, E.P.M.; Heeres, B.C.; Kok, N.F.M.; Janssen, T.; van Werkhoven, E.; Sanders, F.R.K.; Ruers, T.J.M.; Nowee, M.E.; Kuhlmann, K.F.D. High versus low dose Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for hepatic metastases. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 20, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cao, Y.; Chen, H.; Sahgal, A.; Erler, D.; Badellino, S.; Biswas, T.; Dagan, R.; Foote, M.C.; Louie, A.V.; Poon, I.; et al. The impact of local control on widespread progression and survival in oligometastasis-directed SBRT: Results from a large international database. Radiother. Oncol. 2023, 186, 109769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stewart, C.L.; Warner, S.; Ito, K.; Raoof, M.; Wu, G.X.; Kessler, J.; Kim, J.Y.; Fong, Y. Cytoreduction for colorectal metastases: Liver, lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, bone, brain. When does it palliate, prolong survival, and potentially cure? Curr. Probl. Surg. 2018, 55, 330–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wulf, J.; Hädinger, U.; Oppitz, U.; Thiele, W.; Ness-Dourdoumas, R.; Flentje, M. Stereotactic radiotherapy of targets in the lung and liver. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2001, 177, 645–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Py, J.F. Salleron J, Courrech F, Beckendorf V, Croisé-Laurent V, Peiffert D, Vogin G, Dietmann AS. Long-term outcome of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for patient with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Cancer Radiother. 2021, 25, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cazic, D.; Marosevic, G. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Liver Oligometastases: Outcomes and Safety. Acta Medica Acad. 2020, 49, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mutsaers, A.; Greenspoon, J.; Walker-Dilks, C.; Swaminath, A. Systematic review of patient reported quality of life following stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Radiat. Oncol. 2017, 12, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Romero, A.M.; Wunderink, W.; van Os, R.M.; Nowak, P.J.; Heijmen, B.J.; Nuyttens, J.J.; Brandwijk, R.P.; Verhoef, C.; Ijzermans, J.N.; Levendag, P.C. Quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary and metastatic liver tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2008, 70, 1447–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, M.T.; Kim, J.J.; Dinniwell, R.; Brierley, J.; Lockwood, G.; Wong, R.; Cummings, B.; Ringash, J.; Tse, R.V.; Knox, J.J.; et al. Phase I Study of Individualized Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Liver Metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 1585–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yu, J.; Kim, D.H.; Lee, J.; Shin, Y.M.; Kim, J.H.; Yoon, S.M.; Jung, J.; Kim, J.C.; Yu, C.S.; Lim, S.-B.; et al. Radiofrequency Ablation versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Cancer Res. Treat. 2022, 54, 850–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chang, D.T.; Swaminath, A.; Kozak, M.; Weintraub, J.; Koong, A.C.; Kim, J.; Dinniwell, R.; Brierley, J.; Kavanagh, B.D.; Dawson, L.A.; et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. Cancer 2011, 117, 4060–4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Katz, A.W.; Carey-Sampson, M.; Muhs, A.G.; Milano, M.T.; Schell, M.C.; Okunieff, P. Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for limited hepatic metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007, 67, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Coffman, A.R.; Sufficool, D.C.; Kang, J.I.; Hsueh, C.-T.; Swenson, S.; McGee, P.Q.; Nagaraj, G.; Patyal, B.; Reeves, M.E.; Slater, J.D.; et al. Proton stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver metastases—Results of 5-year experience for 81 hepatic lesions. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2021, 12, 1753–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Voglhuber, T.; Eitz, K.A.; Oechsner, M.; Vogel MM, E.; Combs, S.E. Analysis of using high-precision radiotherapy in the treatment of liver metastases regarding toxicity and survival. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. van der Pool, A.E.M.; Méndez Romero, A.; Wunderink, W.; Heijmen, B.J.; Levendag, P.C.; Verhoef, C.; Ijzermans, J.N. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for colorectal liver metastases. Br. J. Surg. 2010, 97, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Herfarth, K.K.; Debus, J.; Lohr, F.; Bahner, M.L.; Rhein, B.; Fritz, P.; Höss, A.; Schlegel, W.; Wannenmacher, M.F. Stereotactic single-dose radiation therapy of liver tumors: Results of a phase I/II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hoyer, M.; Roed, H.; Traberg Hansen, A.; Ohlhuis, L.; Petersen, J.; Nellemann, H.; Kiil Berthelsen, A.; Grau, C.; Aage Engelholm, S.; Von der Maase, H. Phase II study on stereotactic body radiotherapy of colorectal metastases. Acta Oncol. 2006, 45, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Milano, M.T.; Katz, A.W.; Schell, M.C.; Philip, A.; Okunieff, P. Descriptive analysis of oligometastatic lesions treated with curative-intent stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2008, 72, 1516–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kavanagh, B.D.; Schefter, T.E.; Cardenes, H.R.; Stieber, V.W.; Raben, D.; Timmerman, R.D.; McCarter, M.D.; Burri, S.; Nedzi, L.A.; Sawyer, T.E.; et al. Interim analysis of a prospective phase I/II trial of SBRT for liver metastases. Acta Oncol. 2006, 45, 848–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Romero, A.M.; Wunderink, W.; Hussain, S.M.; De Pooter, J.A.; Heijmen, B.J.M.; Nowak, P.C.J.M.; Nuyttens, J.J.; Brandwijk, R.P.; Verhoef, C.; Ijzermans, J.N.M.; et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary and metastatic liver tumors: A single institution phase i-ii study. Acta Oncol. 2006, 45, 831–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hong, T.S.; Wo, J.Y.; Borger, D.R.; Yeap, B.Y.; McDonnell, E.I.; Willers, H.; Blaszkowsky, L.S.; Kwak, E.L.; Allen, J.N.; Clark, J.W.; et al. Phase II Study of Proton-Based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Metastases: Importance of Tumor Genotype. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2017, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Folkert, M.R.; Meyer, J.J.; Aguilera, T.A.; Yokoo, T.; Sanford, N.N.; Rule, W.G.; Mansour, J.; Yopp, A.; Polanco, P.; Hannan, R.; et al. Long-Term Results of a Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial and Subsequent Institutional Experience of Single-Fraction Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy for Liver Metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 109, 1387–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rule, W.; Timmerman, R.; Tong, L.; Abdulrahman, R.; Meyer, J.; Boike, T.; Schwarz, R.E.; Weatherall, P.; Chinsoo Cho, L. Phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with hepatic metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 18, 1081–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Petrelli, F.; Comito, T.; Barni, S.; Pancera, G.; Scorsetti, M.; Ghidini, A.; SBRT for CRC liver metastases. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases: A systematic review. Radiother. Oncol. 2018, 129, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jackson, W.C.; Tao, Y.; Mendiratta-Lala, M.; Bazzi, L.; Wahl, D.R.; Schipper, M.J.; Feng, M.; Cuneo, K.C.; Lawrence, T.S.; Owen, D. Comparison of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Radiofrequency Ablation in the Treatment of Intrahepatic Metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 100, 950–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lee, J.; Shin, I.-S.; Yoon, W.S.; Koom, W.S.; Rim, C.H. Comparisons between radiofrequency ablation and stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver malignancies: Meta-analyses and a systematic review. Radiother. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Ther. Radiol. Oncol. 2020, 145, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Franzese, C.; Comito, T.; Clerici, E.; Di Brina, L.; Tomatis, S.; Navarria, P.; Reggiori, G.; Viganò, L.; Poretti, D.; Pedicini, V.; et al. Liver metastases from colorectal cancer: Propensity score-based comparison of stereotactic body radiation therapy vs. microwave ablation. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 144, 1777–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Olsen, C.C.; Welsh, J.; Kavanagh, B.D.; Franklin, W.; McCarter, M.; Cardenes, H.R.; Gaspar, L.E.; Schefter, T.E. Microscopic and macroscopic tumor and parenchymal effects of liver stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009, 73, 1414–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Herfarth, K.K.; Hof, H.; Bahner, M.L.; Lohr, F.; Höss, A.; van Kaick, G.; Wannenmacher, M.; Debus, J. Assessment of focal liver reaction by multiphasic CT after stereotactic single-dose radiotherapy of liver tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2003, 57, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Haddad, M.M.; Merrell, K.W.; Hallemeier, C.L.; Johnson, G.B.; Mounajjed, T.; Olivier, K.R.; Fidler, J.L.; Venkatesh, S.K. Stereotactic body radiation therapy of liver tumors: Post-treatment appearances and evaluation of treatment response: A pictorial review. Abdom. Radiol. 2016, 41, 2061–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Richter, C.; Seco, J.; Hong, T.S.; Duda, D.G.; Bortfeld, T. Radiation-induced changes in hepatocyte-specific Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI: Potential mechanism. Med. Hypotheses 2014, 83, 477–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Solanki, A.A.; Weichselbaum, R.R.; Appelbaum, D.; Farrey, K.; Yenice, K.M.; Chmura, S.J.; Salama, J.K. The utility of FDG-PET for assessing outcomes in oligometastatic cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy: A cohort study. Radiat. Oncol. 2012, 7, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stinauer, M.A.; Diot, Q.; Westerly, D.C.; Schefter, T.E.; Kavanagh, B.D. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response and normal tissue regeneration after stereotactic body radiotherapy to liver metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 83, e613–e618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aitken, K.; Tree, A.; Thomas, K.; Nutting, C.; Hawkins, M.; Tait, D.; Mandeville, H.; Ahmed, M.; Lalondrelle, S.; Miah, A.; et al. Initial UK Experience of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Extracranial Oligometastases: Can We Change the Therapeutic Paradigm? Clin. Oncol. 2015, 27, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Klement, R.; Guckenberger, M.; Alheid, H.; Allgäuer, M.; Becker, G.; Blanck, O.; Boda-Heggemann, J.; Brunner, T.; Duma, M.; Gerum, S.; et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligo-metastatic liver disease—Influence of pre-treatment chemotherapy and histology on local tumor control. Radiother. Oncol. 2017, 123, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Franceschini, D.; De Rose, F.; Franzese, C.; Comito, T.; Di Brina, L.; Radicioni, G.; Evangelista, A.; D’Agostino, G.R.; Navarria, P.; Scorsetti, M. Predictive Factors for Response and Survival in a Cohort of Oligometastatic Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 104, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ahmed, K.A.; Caudell, J.J.; El-Haddad, G.; Berglund, A.E.; Welsh, E.A.; Yue, B.; Hoffe, S.E.; Naghavi, A.O.; Abuodeh, Y.A.; Frakes, J.M.; et al. Radiosensitivity Differences Between Liver Metastases Based on Primary Histology Suggest Implications for Clinical Outcomes After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2016, 95, 1399–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sheikh, S.; Chen, H.; Sahgal, A.; Poon, I.; Erler, D.; Badellino, S.; Dagan, R.; Foote, M.C.; Louie, A.V.; Redmond, K.J.; et al. An analysis of a large multi-institutional database reveals important associations between treatment parameters and clinical outcomes for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of oligometastatic colorectal cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 167, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, J.; Wen, Y.; Xiang, Z.; Du, H.; Geng, L.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Bai, J.; Dai, T.; Feng, G.; et al. Radical radiotherapy for metachronous oligometastasis after initial treatment of esophageal cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 154, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Franzese, C.; Bonu, M.L.; Comito, T.; Clerici, E.; Loi, M.; Navarria, P.; Franceschini, D.; Pressiani, T.; Rimassa, L.; Scorsetti, M. Stereotactic body radiotherapy in the management of oligometastatic and recurrent biliary tract cancer: Single-institution analysis of outcome and toxicity. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 146, 2289–2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, G.; Kim, D.W.M.; Oladeru, O.T.M.; Niemierko, A.; Gergelis, K.R.; Haddock, M.G.; Toesca, D.A.S.; Koong, A.J.B.; Owen, D.; Weekes, C.; et al. Liver Metastasis–Directed Ablative Radiotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer Offers Prolonged Time Off Systemic Therapy in Selected Patients. Pancreas 2021, 50, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hudson, J.M.; Chung, H.T.; Chu, W.; Taggar, A.; Davis, L.E.; Hallet, J.; Law, C.H.L.; Singh, S.; Myrehaug, S. Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Management of Liver Metastases from Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Preliminary Study. Neuroendocrinology 2022, 112, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Laliscia, C.; Fabrini, M.G.; Delishaj, D.; Morganti, R.; Greco, C.; Cantarella, M.; Tana, R.; Paiar, F.; Gadducci, A. Clinical Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Oligometastatic Gynecological Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer Off. J. Int. Gynecol. Cancer Soc. 2017, 27, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Milano, M.T.; Zhang, H.; Metcalfe, S.K.; Muhs, A.G.; Okunieff, P. Oligometastatic breast cancer treated with curative-intent stereotactic body radiation therapy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2009, 115, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Onal, C.; Guler, O.C.; Yildirim, B.A. Treatment outcomes of breast cancer liver metastasis treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. Breast Edinb. Scotl. 2018, 42, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Franzese, C.; Comito, T.; Viganò, L.; Pedicini, V.; Franceschini, D.; Clerici, E.; Loi, M.; Donadon, M.; Poretti, D.; Solbiati, L.; et al. Liver Metastases-directed Therapy in the Management of Oligometastatic Breast Cancer. Clin. Breast Cancer 2020, 20, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tan, H.; Cheung, P.; Louie, A.V.; Myrehaug, S.; Niglas, M.; Atenafu, E.G.; Chu, W.; Chung, H.T.; Poon, I.; Sahgal, A.; et al. Outcomes of extra-cranial stereotactic body radiotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: Treatment indication matters. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 161, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Stinauer, M.A.; Kavanagh, B.D.; Schefter, T.E. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma: Impact of single fraction equivalent dose on local control. Radiat. Oncol. 2011, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Grossman, C.E.; Okunieff, P.; Brasacchio, R.A.; Katz, A.W.; Singh, D.P.; Usuki, K.Y.; Chen, Y.; Milano, M.T. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Oligometastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma or Melanoma: Prognostic Factors and Outcomes. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2015, 93, E202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Franceschini, D.; Franzese, C.; De Rose, F.; Navarria, P.; D’agostino, G.R.; Comito, T.; Tozzi, A.; Tronconi, M.C.; Di Guardo, L.; Del Vecchio, M.; et al. Role of extra cranial stereotactic body radiation therapy in the management of Stage IV melanoma. Br. J. Radiol. 2017, 90, 20170257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mohamad, I.; Barry, A.; Dawson, L.; Hosni, A. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for colorectal liver metastases. Int. J. Hyperth. 2022, 39, 611–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Joo, J.H.; Park, J.-H.; Kim, J.C.; Yu, C.S.; Lim, S.-B.; Park, I.J.; Kim, T.W.; Hong, Y.S.; Kim, K.-P.; Yoon, S.M.; et al. Local Control Outcomes Using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 99, 876–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schefter, T.E.; Kavanagh, B.D.; Timmerman, R.D.; Cardenes, H.R.; Baron, A.; Gaspar, L.E. A phase I trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005, 62, 1371–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Scorsetti, M.; Comito, T.; Clerici, E.; Franzese, C.; Tozzi, A.; Iftode, C.; Di Brina, L.; Navarria, P.; Mancosu, P.; Reggiori, G.; et al. Phase II trial on SBRT for unresectable liver metastases: Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of survival after 5 years of follow-up. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Doi, H.; Uemoto, K.; Suzuki, O.; Yamada, K.; Masai, N.; Tatsumi, D.; Shiomi, H.; Oh, R.J. Effect of primary tumor location and tumor size on the response to radiotherapy for liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Oncol. Lett. 2017, 14, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Flamarique, S.; Campo, M.; Asín, G.; Pellejero, S.; Viúdez, A.; Arias, F. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver metastasis from colorectal cancer: Size matters. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2020, 22, 2350–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lanciano, R.; Lamond, J.; Yang, J.; Feng, J.; Arrigo, S.; Good, M.; Brady, L. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for patients with heavily pretreated liver metastases and liver tumors. Front. Oncol. 2012, 2, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Moon, D.H.; Wang, A.Z.; Tepper, J.E. A prospective study of the safety and efficacy of liver stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with and without prior liver-directed therapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2018, 126, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Landriscina, M.; Maddalena, F.; Laudiero, G.; Esposito, F. Adaptation to Oxidative Stress, Chemoresistance, and Cell Survival. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2009, 11, 2701–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fink, M.K.; Kleeberg, U.R.; Bartels, S. Adjuvant Therapy-Related Shortening of Survival (ATRESS): An Underrated Phenomenon. Oncologist 2015, 20, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Thompson, R.; Cheung, P.; Chu, W.; Myrehaug, S.; Poon, I.; Sahgal, A.; Soliman, H.; Tseng, C.-L.; Wong, S.; Ung, Y.; et al. Outcomes of extra-cranial stereotactic body radiotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Dose and site of metastases matter. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 142, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mahadevan, A.; Blanck, O.; Lanciano, R.; Peddada, A.; Sundararaman, S.; D’Ambrosio, D.; Sharma, S.; Perry, D.; Kolker, J.; Davis, J. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver metastasis—Clinical outcomes from the international multi-institutional RSSearch® Patient Registry. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ohri, N.; Tomé, W.A.; Méndez Romero, A.; Miften, M.; Ten Haken, R.K.; Dawson, L.A.; Grimm, J.; Yorke, E.; Jackson, A. Local Control After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2021, 110, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Meyer, J.J.; Foster, R.D.; Lev-Cohain, N.; Yokoo, T.; Dong, Y.; Schwarz, R.E.; Rule, W.; Tian, J.; Xie, Y.; Hannan, R.; et al. A Phase I Dose-Escalation Trial of Single-Fraction Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Grimm, J.; Marks, L.B.; Jackson, A.; Kavanagh, B.D.; Xue, J.; Yorke, E. High Dose per Fraction, Hypofractionated Treatment Effects in the Clinic (HyTEC): An Overview. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2021, 110, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Lo, S.S.; Fakiris, A.J.; Chang, E.L.; Mayr, N.A.; Wang, J.Z.; Papiez, L.; Teh, B.S.; McGarry, R.C.; Cardenes, H.R.; Timmerman, R.D. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: A novel treatment modality. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 7, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lo, S.S.; Fakiris, A.J.; Teh, B.S.; Cardenes, H.R.; A Henderson, M.; A Forquer, J.; Papiez, L.; McGarry, R.C.; Wang, J.Z.; Li, K.; et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for oligometastases. Expert Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 2009, 9, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Worm, E.S.; Høyer, M.; Fledelius, W.; Poulsen, P.R. Three-dimensional, time-resolved, intrafraction motion monitoring throughout stereotactic liver radiation therapy on a conventional linear accelerator. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013, 86, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aitken, K.L.; Hawkins, M.A. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Liver Metastases. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 27, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sharma, M.; Nano, T.F.; Akkati, M.; Milano, M.T.; Morin, O.; Feng, M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of liver tumor position variability during SBRT using various motion management and IGRT strategies. Radiother. Oncol. 2022, 166, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Alrabiah, K.; Liao, G.; Shen, Q.; Chiang, C.-L.; Dawson, L.A. The evolving role of radiation therapy as treatment for liver metastases. J. Natl. Cancer Cent. 2022, 2, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Henke, L.; Kashani, R.; Robinson, C.; Curcuru, A.; DeWees, T.; Bradley, J.; Green, O.; Michalski, J.; Mutic, S.; Parikh, P.; et al. Phase I trial of stereotactic MR-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for the treatment of oligometastatic or unresectable primary malignancies of the abdomen. Radiother. Oncol. 2017, 126, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chetvertkov, M.; Monroe, J.I.; Boparai, J.; Solberg, T.D.; Pafundi, D.H.; Ruo, R.L.; Gladstone, D.J.; Yin, F.-F.; Chetty, I.J.; Benedict, S.; et al. NRG Oncology Survey on Practice and Technology Use in SRT and SBRT Delivery. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 602607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stera, S.; Miebach, G.; Buergy, D.; Dreher, C.; Lohr, F.; Wurster, S.; Rödel, C.; Marcella, S.; Krug, D.; A, G.F.; et al. Liver SBRT with active motion-compensation results in excellent local control for liver oligometastases: An outcome analysis of a pooled multi-platform patient cohort. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 158, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Van den Begin, R.; Engels, B.; Gevaert, T.; Duchateau, M.; Tournel, K.; Verellen, D.; Storme, G.; De Ridder, M. Impact of inadequate respiratory motion management in SBRT for oligometastatic colorectal cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2014, 113, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Bang, A.; Wilhite, T.J.; Pike, L.R.; Cagney, D.N.; Aizer, A.A.; Taylor, A.; Spektor, A.; Krishnan, M.; Ott, P.A.; Balboni, T.A.; et al. Multicenter Evaluation of the Tolerability of Combined Treatment With PD-1 and CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Palliative Radiation Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2017, 98, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Tang, C.; Welsh, J.W.; de Groot, P.; Massarelli, E.; Chang, J.Y.; Hess, K.R.; Basu, S.; Curran, M.A.; Cabanillas, M.E.; Subbiah, V.; et al. Ipilimumab with Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy: Phase I Results and Immunologic Correlates from Peripheral T Cells. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 1388–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Luke, J.J.; Lemons, J.M.; Karrison, T.G.; Pitroda, S.P.; Melotek, J.M.; Zha, Y.; Al-Hallaq, H.A.; Arina, A.; Khodarev, N.N.; Janisch, L.; et al. Safety and Clinical Activity of Pembrolizumab and Multisite Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 1611–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Witt, J.S.; Rosenberg, S.A.; Bassetti, M.F. MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy for liver tumours: Visualising the future. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, e74–e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rosenberg, S.A.; Henke, L.E.; Shaverdian, N.; Mittauer, K.; Wojcieszynski, A.P.; Hullett, C.R.; Kamrava, M.; Lamb, J.; Cao, M.; Green, O.L.; et al. A Multi-Institutional Experience of MR-Guided Liver Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 4, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Feldman, A.M.; Modh, A.; Glide-Hurst, C.; Chetty, I.J.; Movsas, B. Real-time Magnetic Resonance-guided Liver Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: An Institutional Report Using a Magnetic Resonance-Linac System. Cureus 2019, 11, e5774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hall, W.A.; Straza, M.W.; Chen, X.; Mickevicius, N.; Erickson, B.; Schultz, C.; Awan, M.; Ahunbay, E.; Li, X.A.; Paulson, E.S. Initial clinical experience of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for liver metastases, primary liver malignancy, and pancreatic cancer with 4D-MRI based online adaptation and real-time MRI monitoring using a 1.5 Tesla MR-Linac. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Weykamp, F.; Hoegen, P.; Klüter, S.; Spindeldreier, C.K.; König, L.; Seidensaal, K.; Regnery, S.; Liermann, J.; Rippke, C.; Koerber, S.A.; et al. Magnetic Resonance-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Liver Tumors: Initial Clinical Experience and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 610637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rogowski, P.; von Bestenbostel, R.; Walter, F.; Straub, K.; Nierer, L.; Kurz, C.; Landry, G.; Reiner, M.; Auernhammer, C.J.; Belka, C.; et al. Feasibility and Early Clinical Experience of Online Adaptive MR-Guided Radiotherapy of Liver Tumors. Cancers 2021, 13, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Ugurluer, G.; Mustafayev, T.Z.; Gungor, G.; Atalar, B.; Abacioglu, U.; Sengoz, M.; Agaoglu, F.; Demir, G.; Ozyar, E. Stereotactic MR-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for the treatment of liver metastases in oligometastatic patients: Initial clinical experience. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2021, 39, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Hoegen, P.; Zhang, K.S.; Tonndorf-Martini, E.; Weykamp, F.; Regnery, S.; Naumann, P.; Lang, K.; Ristau, J.; Körber, S.A.; Dreher, C.; et al. MR-guided adaptive versus ITV-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatic metastases (MAESTRO): A randomized controlled phase II trial. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 17, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Gandhi, S.J.; Liang, X.; Ding, X.; Zhu, T.C.; Ben-Josef, E.; Plastaras, J.P.; Metz, J.M.; Both, S.; Apisarnthanarax, S. Clinical decision tool for optimal delivery of liver stereotactic body radiation therapy: Photons versus protons. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2015, 5, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Colbert, L.E.; Cloyd, J.M.; Koay, E.J.; Crane, C.H.; Vauthey, J.N. Proton beam radiation as salvage therapy for bilateral colorectal liver metastases not amenable to second-stage hepatectomy. Surgery 2017, 161, 1543–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shiba, S.; Wakatsuki, M.; Toyama, S.; Terashima, K.; Uchida, H.; Katoh, H.; Shibuya, K.; Okazaki, S.; Miyasaka, Y.; Ohno, T.; et al. Carbon-ion radiotherapy for oligometastatic liver disease: A national multicentric study by the Japan Carbon-Ion Radiation Oncology Study Group (J-CROS). Cancer Sci. 2023, 114, 3679–3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Popple, R.A.; Ove, R.; Shen, S. Tumor control probability for selective boosting of hypoxic subvolumes, including the effect of reoxygenation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2002, 54, 921–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Outcomes of liver SBRT from selected retrospective and prospective series.
Table 1. Outcomes of liver SBRT from selected retrospective and prospective series.
Study TypeNumber of LesionsSize
(cm/mL)		Radiation Dose BED10Follow Up
(Median) 		1 y LC/OS2 y LC/OS
Rusthoven et al. [2]Prospective 49Median 14.9 mL
(0.75–97.98)		60 Gy in 3 fractions180 Gy1016 months95% LC92% LC
30% OS
Lee et al. [25]Prospective 143Median
134.8 mL
(6.7–3090) 		54–60 Gy in 6 fractions 102.6–120 Gy1010.8 months71% LC
63% OS		-
Scorsetti et al. [15]Prospective 761.1–5.4 cm/
(1.8–134.3) mL		75 Gy in 3 fractions262.5 Gy106.1 years 95% LC
85% OS		-
Herfarth et al. [32]Prospective56≤6 cm/10 (1 to 132) mL14–26 Gy in 1 fraction33.6–
93.6 Gy10		5.7 months71% LC
72% OS		-
Kavanagh et al. [35]Prospective21 patients 14 (1–98) mL60 Gy in 3 fractions180 Gy1019 months 93% LC-
Mendez Romero et al. [36]Prospective34 3.2 (0.5–7.2) cm/
22.2 (1.1–322) mL		37.5 Gy in 3 fractions84.38 Gy1012.9 months94% LC
85% OS		82% LC
62% OS
Hong et al. [37]Prospective1432.5 cm (0.5–11.9 )30–50 GyE
(Proton SBRT) in 5 fractions		100.72, 48 Gy10E30.1 months71.9% LC
66.3% OS		35.9% OS
Folkert et al. [38]Prospective39 2.0 cm (0.5–5.0 cm)35–40 Gy in 1 fraction157.5–200 Gy1025.9 months-96.6% 4 yLC
82% OS
Rule et al. [39]Prospective37 2.5 cm (0.4–7.8)30–60 Gy in 5 fractions 40–132 Gy1020 months72% LC57.6% OS
Wulf et al. [20]Retrospective2350 mL (9–516)30 Gy in 3 fractions60 Gy109 months76% LC
71% OS		61% LC
43% OS
Katz et al. [28]Retrospective1742.7 cm (0.6– 12.2)30–55 Gy in 5 fractions48–115.5 Gy1014.5 months76% LC57% LC
Cazic et al. [22]Retrospective16 patients≤6 cm60 Gy in 8 fractions105 Gy1012 months62.5% LC
87.5% OS		-
Coffman et al. [29]Retrospective812.5 cm (0.7–8.9)36–60 Gy in 3 fractions
(proton SBRT)		60–180 Gy10E15 months92.5% LC-
Table 2. Summarizes prospective and retrospective series on liver SBRT from various primary sites.
Table 2. Summarizes prospective and retrospective series on liver SBRT from various primary sites.
Primary SiteAuthorDesignNo. of PatientNo. of Liver LesionsDoseMedian Follow Up (mo)Median OS (mo)1 y LC/OS2 y LC/OS1/2 y PFS
CRCHoyer et al. [33]Phase 24414145 Gy/3 fx5219.267% OS86% LC
38% OS		19% 2 y
Vanderpool et al. [31]Prospective203112.5–15 Gy/3 fx2634100% OS
100% LC		74% LC
83% OS		-
Chang et al. [27]Retrospective6510222–60 Gy/1–6 fx14-72% OS
62% LC		45% LC
38% OS		-
Py et al. [21]Retrospective679937.5–54 Gy/3–5 fx475395.5% OS
86.6% LC		72.4% LC
81.4% OS		81% 1 y
54% 2 y
Voglhuber et al. [30]Retrospective11515035 Gy/5 fr11.420.472% OS
82% LC		82% LC
45% OS		20% 1 y
10% 2 y
Yu et al. [26]Retrospective446236–60 Gy/3–5 fr31.8-96% OS--
EsophagealLi et al. [56]Retrospective8 (liver)-Median BED10 60 (39–90 Gy)3514---
BTCFranzese et al. [57]Retrospective21 (liver)-Median 45 Gy (24–75)/3–10 fx1413.758% OS
76.7% LC		71% LC
41% OS		36% 1 y
20%: 2 y
Pancreatic ADCLee et al. [58]Retrospective76-Median 50 Gy (40–50)/5 fx10.98.538% OS
66% LC		-7%: 1 y
GI NETHudson et al. [59]Retrospective2553Median 50 Gy/5 fr (25–60 Gy/3 fr)14-92% LC-44%: 1 y
GYNLaliscia et al. [60]Retrospective8 (liver)-24 Gy/1 fr, 27 Gy/3 fr-----
BreastMilano et al. [61]Prospective14 (liver)33 (curative)----76% OS44%: 2 y
Onal et al. [62]Retrospective222954 Gy/3 fx16-85% OS
100% LC		88% LC
57% OS		38%: 1 y
8%: 2 y
Franzese et al. [63]Retrospective54-Median dose 60 Gy (30–75 Gy)/3 fx (3–6 fx)26.2-95.5% OS
57.6% LC		41.6% LC
76.9% OS		38.7%:1 y
22%: 2 y
Tan [64]Retrospective120
(24 liver)		2930–60 Gy/3–5 fx15.2553.1683.5% OS
89% LC		86.6% LC
70% OS		45%: 1 y
32%: 2 y
RCC & MelanomaStinauer et al. [65]RetrospectiveMelanoma 17 RCC 131140–50 Gy/5 fr, 42–60 Gy/3 fx2824.388% LC--
Grossman et al. [66]Retrospective16 RCC 15 melanoma14 (liver)Median SBRT 50 Gy, median fractional dose 5 Gy-10.894.7% LC--
MelanomaFranceschini et al. [67]Retrospective31 (8 liver)1150.25–75/3–6 fx1310.641%OS
96.6% LC		82.8% LC
21% OS		18.5%: 1 y
13.9%: 2 y
Abbreviations: CRC: colorectal cancer, BTC: biliary tract cancer, ADC: adenocarcinoma, GI NET: gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor, GYN: gynecological malignancies, RCC: renal cell carcinoma.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mheid, S.; Allen, S.; Ng, S.S.W.; Hall, W.A.; Sanford, N.N.; Aguilera, T.A.; Elamir, A.M.; Bahij, R.; Intven, M.P.W.; Radhakrishna, G.; et al. Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 9230-9243. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100667

AMA Style

Mheid S, Allen S, Ng SSW, Hall WA, Sanford NN, Aguilera TA, Elamir AM, Bahij R, Intven MPW, Radhakrishna G, et al. Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century. Current Oncology. 2023; 30(10):9230-9243. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100667

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mheid, Sara, Stefan Allen, Sylvia S. W. Ng, William A. Hall, Nina N. Sanford, Todd A. Aguilera, Ahmed M. Elamir, Rana Bahij, Martijn P. W. Intven, Ganesh Radhakrishna, and et al. 2023. "Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century" Current Oncology 30, no. 10: 9230-9243. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100667

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop