0 50

Cited 0 times in

Defining Minimum Treatment Parameters of Ablative Radiation Therapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Expert Consensus

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author성진실-
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-23T03:27:16Z-
dc.date.available2024-05-23T03:27:16Z-
dc.date.issued2024-03-
dc.identifier.issn1879-8500-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/199227-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a highly effective treatment in select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system does not recommend the use of EBRT in HCC due to a lack of sufficient evidence and intends to perform an individual patient level meta-analysis of ablative EBRT in this population. However, there are many types of EBRT described in the literature with no formal definition of what constitutes “ablative.” Thus, we convened a group of international experts to provide consensus on the parameters that define ablative EBRT in HCC. Methods and Materials: Fundamental parameters related to dose, fractionation, radiobiology, target identification, and delivery technique were identified by a steering committee to generate 7 Key Criteria (KC) that would define ablative EBRT for HCC. Using a modified Delphi (mDelphi) method, experts in the use of EBRT in the treatment of HCC were surveyed. Respondents were given 30 days to respond in round 1 of the mDelphi and 14 days to respond in round 2. A threshold of ≥70% was used to define consensus for answers to each KC. Results: Of 40 invitations extended, 35 (88%) returned responses. In the first round, 3 of 7 KC reached consensus. In the second round, 100% returned responses and consensus was reached in 3 of the remaining 4 KC. The distribution of answers for one KC, which queried the a/b ratio of HCC, was such that consensus was not achieved. Based on this analysis, ablative EBRT for HCC was defined as a BED10 ≥80 Gy with daily imaging and multiphasic contrast used for target delineation. Treatment breaks (eg, for adaptive EBRT) are allowed, but the total treatment time should be ≤6 weeks. Equivalent dose when treating with protons should use a conversion factor of 1.1, but there is no single conversion factor for carbon ions. Conclusions: Using a mDelphi method assessing expert opinion, we provide the first consensus definition of ablative EBRT for HCC. Empirical data are required to define the a/b of HCC. © 2023-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.relation.isPartOfPRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHAmbulatory Care Facilities-
dc.subject.MESHCarbon-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular* / radiotherapy-
dc.subject.MESHConsensus-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms* / radiotherapy-
dc.titleDefining Minimum Treatment Parameters of Ablative Radiation Therapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Expert Consensus-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTed K Yanagihara-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoel E Tepper-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAndrew M Moon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAisling Barry-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMeritxell Molla-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJinsil Seong-
dc.contributor.googleauthorFerran Torres-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSmith Apisarnthanarax-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMichael Buckstein-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHiginia Cardenes-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDaniel T Chang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMary Feng-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChandan Guha-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChristopher L Hallemeier-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMaria A Hawkins-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMorten Hoyer-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHiromitsu Iwata-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSalma K Jabbour-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLisa Kachnic-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJordan Kharofa-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTae Hyun Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAlexander Kirichenko-
dc.contributor.googleauthorEugene J Koay-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHirokazu Makishima-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoel Mases-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJeffrey J Meyer-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPablo Munoz-Schuffenegger-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDawn Owen-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHee Chul Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJordi Saez-
dc.contributor.googleauthorNina N Sanford-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMarta Scorsetti-
dc.contributor.googleauthorGrace L Smith-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJennifer Y Wo-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSang Min Yoon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTheodore S Lawrence-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMaria Reig-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLaura A Dawson-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.016-
dc.contributor.localIdA01956-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ04363-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-8519-
dc.identifier.pmid38244026-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187985002300276X-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameSeong, Jin Sil-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor성진실-
dc.citation.volume14-
dc.citation.number2-
dc.citation.startPage134-
dc.citation.endPage145-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationPRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, Vol.14(2) : 134-145, 2024-03-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiation Oncology (방사선종양학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.