Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 May 1;110(1):196-205.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.12.290. Epub 2018 Jan 6.

Radiation Dose-Volume Effects for Liver SBRT

Affiliations
Review

Radiation Dose-Volume Effects for Liver SBRT

Moyed Miften et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as an effective, noninvasive treatment option for primary liver cancer and metastatic disease occurring in the liver. Although SBRT can be highly effective for establishing local control in hepatic malignancies, a tradeoff exists between tumor control and normal tissue complications. The objective of the present study was to review the normal tissue dose-volume effects for SBRT-induced liver and gastrointestinal toxicities and derive normal tissue complication probability models.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: none.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Grade ≥3 liver enzyme toxicity as a function of mean liver dose (MLD), with probit model fit and 95% and 68% confidence intervals (CIs). Dose “error bars” (horizontal axis) for each data point represent range of reported doses for each study; toxicity “error bars” (vertical axis) represent binomial 68% CIs. The number of patients who developed toxicity of the total number of patients for each study is displayed next to the data point. All studies excluded the gross tumor volume in the MLD calculation, with the exception of Son et al (20). Probit model fitting failed to establish the upper confidence limit for the dose to 50% of the target, and the null hypothesis of no dose response was not rejected (P = .10); therefore, we could not exclude that the incidence of liver enzyme complications was independent of the dose; the probit model fit is displayed for reference. Abbreviation: LML = log maximum likelihood.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Grade ≥2 general gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity as a function of the prescription (Rx) physical dose to the target, with the probit model result (maximum likelihood parameter fitting) and 95% and 68% confidence intervals (CIs). General GI toxicities were defined as fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, gastritis, ulcers, GI area pain, and colitis. The target Rx dose definition is provided in Table 2. Each data point was placed at the reported mean or median dose and reported complication rate; horizontal error bars represent the reported ranges, and the vertical error bars represent binomial 68% CIs. The number of patients who developed toxicity of the total number of patients for each study is displayed next to the data point. The study by Andolino et al (14) did not distinguish between grade 1 and 2 general GI toxicities. Abbreviation: LML = log maximum likelihood.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Grade ≥3 general gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity as a function of the prescription (Rx) physical dose to the target, with the probit model result (maximum likelihood parameter fitting) and 95% and 68% confidence intervals (CIs). General GI toxicities were defined as fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, gastritis, ulcers, GI area pain, and colitis. The target RX dose definition is provided in Table 2. Each data point is placed at the reported mean or median dose and reported complication rate; the horizontal error bars represent the reported ranges, and the vertical error bars represent binomial 68% CIs. The number of patients who developed toxicity out of the total number of patients for each study is displayed next to the data point. Abbreviation: LML = log maximum likelihood.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: Globocan 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–2917. - PubMed
    1. Paley MR, Ros PR. Hepatic metastases. Radiol Clin North Am. 1998;36:349–363. - PubMed
    1. Gayowski TJ, Iwatsuki S, Madariaga JR, et al. Experience in hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of clinical and pathologic risk factors. Surgery. 1994;116:703–711. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fong Y, Cohen AM, Fortner JG, et al. Liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:938–946. - PubMed
    1. Aloia TA, Vauthey J-N, Loyer EM, et al. Solitary colorectal liver metastasis: Resection determines outcome. Arch Surg. 2006;141:460–467. - PubMed

Publication types