Percutaneous Interstitial Brachytherapy (IBT) as the Preferred Modality for Liver Tumors in Resource Limited Oncology Departments
Abstract
Dear Editor,
The use of high dose rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDRIBT) is usually limited to gynaecological cancers in the Asia Pacific region. Despite the availability of facility, only a few centres perform HDRIBT to other anatomical sites such as prostate, head and neck, oesophagus, lung and liver. Recent European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines has incorporated HDRIBT as one of the modalities for liver-directed therapy in primary hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) and colorectal cancer liver metastasis [1, 2]. The literature is still growing on the use of HDIRBT for other metastatic tumors to liver.
Other local ablative therapy to liver such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation comes with the issue of cost, availability of expertise, anatomical limitation and the need for the multidisciplinary involvement such as the interventional radiologist and anesthetist [3]. The reported local control (LC) rate of HDRIBT liver is equivalent to RFA for metastatic tumors that are <4cm [4]. In contrast to RFA, there is no size limit for the lesion to be treated for HDRIBT if dosimetric constraints of the liver can be achieved [3, 4]. Specifically, HCC is an extremely radiosensitive tumor where a single fraction dose of 15Gy is sufficient to achieve LC and hence reducing the risk of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) in an already cirrhotic liver [5].
Percutaneous insertion of interstitial brachytherapy applicators and the use of computerized treatment planning system made it possible for virtual adjustment of the lethal radiation dose to cover the tumor edges, unlike RFA where multiple overlapping thermal ablations are needed [3]. There is also no issue with centrally located tumors around the hilum, problem of “heat sink effect†and subdiaphragmatic tumors as in RFA [3]. With the use of flexible plastic applicators, most lesions in the liver including those in the subdiaphragmatic segment VII and VIII lesions can be targeted with relative ease. Unlike SBRT, motion management is of little concern in HDRIBT liver as the applicators in-situ move with breathing.
HDRIBT liver is a simple and safe procedure that can be performed under percutaneous local anesthesia and minimal sedation with ultrasonography or CT-scan guidance that is readily available in most radiotherapy departments. At Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), we have successfully performed 112 HDRIBT for liver lesions since November 2018. Figure 1 shows an example of HDRIBT plan for metastatic lesion performed at USM. Though our data is yet to be published, there were no major procedure related toxicity with only 2 patients having CTCAE grade 3 toxicity needing blood transfusion for subcapsular bleeding and no treatment related deaths. From the preliminary assessment, the LC rate in our centre conforms to other published series in the literature [4, 5].
Since brachytherapy facility is readily available in most radiotherapy departments, serious consideration should be given for HDRIBT as the preferred choice for liver directed therapy. With moderate training in procedural skills and initial mentoring from interventional radiologist on the safe percutaneous puncture techniques coupled with the core knowledge of the radiation oncologist, liver HDRIBT program can be implemented with ease in radiotherapy departments. Bearing in mind that single use plastic applicators are less pricy than RFA probes, the overall treatment cost can be lower if existing brachytherapy facility and human resource is used.
References
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, Sobrero A, Van Krieken JH, Aderka D, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1386-422.
Vogel A, Cervantes A, Chau I, Daniele B, Llovet JM, Meyer T, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):871-3.
Wu M-C, Tang Z-Y, Ye S-L, Fan J, Qin S-K, Yang J-M, et al. Expert consensus on local ablation therapies for primary liver cancer. Chinese Clinical Oncology. 2012;1(1):14.
Collettini F, Lutter A, Schnapauff D, Hildebrandt B, Puhl G, Denecke T, et al. Unresectable colorectal liver metastases: percutaneous ablation using CT-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (CT-HDBRT). Rofo. 2014;186(6):606-12.
Mohnike K, Wieners G, Schwartz F, Seidensticker M, Pech M, Ruehl R, et al. Computed tomography-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: safety, efficacy, and effect on survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(1):172-9.
Published
Issue
Section
License
JBCS Publication Ethics
JBCS is committed to ensure the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines.
Authors
Authors should discuss objectively the significance of research work, technical detail and relevant references to enable others to replicate the experiments. JBCS do not accept fraudulent or inaccurate statements that may constitute towards unethical conduct.
Authors should ensure the originality of their works. In cases where the work and/or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgements should be made. JBCS do not accept plagiarism in all forms that constitute towards unethical publishing of an article.
This includes simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal. Corresponding author is responsible for the full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers of JBCS treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Therefore, Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality and should not use privileged information and/or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted based on academic merit and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. In cases where selected Reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript, Reviewer should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process in TWO (2) weeks time from the review offer is made.
In any reasonable circumstances, Reviewers should not consider to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest (i.e: competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated to the papers).
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. JBCS strictly do not allow editors to use unpublished information of authors without the written consent of the author. Editors are required to take appropriate responsive actions if ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read ,The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s) institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
INFORMED CONSENT
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript, this includes to all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants.
DATA SHARING POLICY
JBCS strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible
Authors who do not wish to share their data must state that data will not be shared, and give the reason.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The JBCS retains the copyright of published manuscripts under the terms of the Copyright Transfer Agreement. However, the journal permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided permission to reuse, distribute and reproduce is obtained from the Journal's Editor and the original work is properly cited.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (JBCS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
