» Articles » PMID: 37383543

Outcomes of Radiation Segmentectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Versus Chronic Viral Hepatitis

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) versus hepatitis C virus (HCV).

Materials And Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with NAFLD- or HCV-related HCC treated with radiation segmentectomy from 01/2017-06/2022 was performed. Eligibility criteria included solitary tumor ≤8 cm or up to 3 HCC ≤3 cm, ECOG 0-1, and absence of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Imaging best response was assessed per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Target tumor and overall progression, time-to-progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. All outcomes were censored for liver transplantation (LT). Complete pathologic response (CPN) was assessed in patients who underwent LT.

Results: Of 142 patients included (NAFLD: 61; HCV: 81), most had cirrhosis (NAFLD: 87%; HCV: 86%) and small tumors (median size NAFLD: 2.3 cm; HCV: 2.5 cm). Patients with NAFLD had higher BMI (p<0.001) and worse ALBI scores (p=0.003). Patients with HCV were younger (p<0.001) and had higher AFP levels (p=0.034). Median radiation dose (NAFLD: 508 Gy; HCV: 452 Gy) and specific activity (NAFLD: 700 Bq; HCV: 698 Bq) were similar between cohorts. Objective response was 100% and 97% in the NAFLD and HCV cohorts, respectively. Target tumor progression occurred in 1 (2%) NAFLD and 8 (10%) HCV patients. Target tumor TTP was not met for either cohort. Overall progression occurred in 23 (38%) NAFLD and 39 (48%) HCV patients. Overall TTP was 17.4 months (95% CI 13.5-22.2) in NAFLD and 13.5 months (95% CI 0.4-26.6) in HCV patients (p=0.86). LT was performed in 27 (44%) NAFLD and 33 (41%) HCV patients, with a CPN rate of 63% and 54%, respectively. OS was not met in the NAFLD cohort and was 53.9 months (95% CI 32.1-75.7) in the HCV cohort (p=0.15).

Conclusion: Although NAFLD and HCV are associated with different mechanisms of liver injury, patients with early-stage HCC treated with radiation segmentectomy achieve comparable outcomes.

Citing Articles

Surgical Implications for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Anbarasu C, Williams-Perez S, Camp E, Erstad D Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(16).

PMID: 39199546 PMC: 11352989. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16162773.


Radiation Segmentectomy for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Practical Review of Evidence.

Mourad S, De la Garza-Ramos C, Toskich B Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(3).

PMID: 38339418 PMC: 10854641. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030669.

References
1.
Casadei-Gardini A, Rimini M, Tada T, Suda G, Shimose S, Kudo M . Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population. Eur J Cancer. 2022; 180:9-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.11.017. View

2.
De la Garza-Ramos C, Montazeri S, Croome K, LeGout J, Sella D, Cleary S . Radiation Segmentectomy for the Treatment of Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Outcomes Compared with Those of Surgical Resection. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022; 33(7):775-785.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2022.03.021. View

3.
Cheng A, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle P, Ducreux M, Kim T . Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2021; 76(4):862-873. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030. View

4.
Ogasawara S, Koroki K, Kanzaki H, Kobayashi K, Kiyono S, Nakamura M . Changes in therapeutic options for hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia. Liver Int. 2021; 42(9):2055-2066. DOI: 10.1111/liv.15101. View

5.
Montazeri S, De la Garza-Ramos C, Lewis A, Lewis J, LeGout J, Sella D . Hepatocellular carcinoma radiation segmentectomy treatment intensification prior to liver transplantation increases rates of complete pathologic necrosis: an explant analysis of 75 tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022; 49(11):3892-3897. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05776-y. View