ライフサイエンスコーパス: SBRT

1 SBRT and surgery, however, had identical CSS.

2 SBRT dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96; P = .02) and being

3 SBRT involves constructing very compact high-dose volume

4 SBRT is an effective primary or salvage treatment for me

5 SBRT reduced LR, RR, and LRR.

6 SBRT reduced the risk of local recurrence (LR), 4% versu

7 SBRT simulation, planning, and treatments were performed

8 SBRT treatment dose was 60 to 66 Gy total in three fract

9 SBRT was volumetrically prescribed as 48 (T1) or 60 (T2)

10 SBRT-SBRT was not cost-effective, at $558 679 per QALY g

11 The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients.

12 s of the following treatment strategies: (a) SBRT as initial treatment followed by SBRT for local pro

13 70% and 53% after RFA and 74% and 46% after SBRT.

14 n opioid use during the first 6 months after SBRT (43 [28.9%] of 149 patients with strong opioid use

15 efore SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p<0.0001).

16 to the MDASI during the first 6 months after SBRT (p=0.00003), and significant reductions in a compos

17 elated to treatment (1.1 to 7.7 months after SBRT).

18 d other symptoms were evident 6 months after SBRT, along with satisfactory progression-free survival

19 ion occurred in one patient, 13 months after SBRT.

20 of 7.5 months (range, 7 to 13 months) after SBRT.

21 Progression-free survival after SBRT was 80.5% (95% CI 72.9-86.1) at 1 year and 72.4% (6

22 ain reduction from baseline to 4 weeks after SBRT was clinically meaningful (mean 3.4 [SD 2.9] on the

23 ial local control at one and two years after SBRT was 100% and 96%, respectively.

24 cal control rates at one and two years after SBRT were 95% and 92%, respectively.

25 Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there ap

26 Both RFA and SBRT are effective local treatment options for inoperabl

27 RFA and SBRT groups were similar with respect to number of lesio

28 lized HCC who were eligible for both RFA and SBRT to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following

29 cations occurred after 11% and 5% of RFA and SBRT treatments, respectively (P = .31).

30 the preferred strategy, because RFA-RFA and SBRT-RFA were less effective and more costly.

31 Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation th

32 e BPI, increased from 39 of 149 (26%) before SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p<0.0001).

33 Symptoms were measured before SBRT and at several time points up to 6 months after tre

34 ar carcinoma (HCC) who are eligible for both SBRT and RFA.

35 gression (SBRT-RFA), and (d) RFA followed by SBRT for local progression (RFA-SBRT).

36 s: (a) SBRT as initial treatment followed by SBRT for local progression (SBRT-SBRT), (b) RFA followed

37 by RFA for local progression (RFA-RFA), (c) SBRT followed by RFA for local progression (SBRT-RFA), a

38 Results In the base case, SBRT-SBRT yielded the most QALYs (1.565) and cost $197 5

39 After erlotinib commencement, SBRT with equipotent fractionation was delivered to all

40 Conclusion SBRT for initial treatment of localized, inoperable HCC

41 phase I/II trial demonstrates that high-dose SBRT is safe and effective for the treatment of patients

42 Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with simil

43 The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT.

44 A were 83.6% and 80.2% v 97.4% and 83.8% for SBRT.

45 he hope of finding the ideal application for SBRT in the treatment arsenal.

46 edge versus 1.31 L and 10.14 mL/min/mmHg for SBRT (P = not significant).

47 74 years for wedge versus 4 and 78 years for SBRT (P < .01, P = .04).

48 g spinal metastases (166 lesions) were given SBRT in a phase 1-2 study.

49 However, SBRT is the preferred salvage therapy for local progress

50 We review current imaging modalities used in SBRT treatment planning and tumour assessment and review

51 I/II trial demonstrates that high-dose liver SBRT is safe and effective for the treatment of patients

52 CONCLUSION Both lung SBRT and wedge resection are reasonable treatment option

53 edge resection (n = 69) or image-guided lung SBRT (n = 58) from February 2003 through August 2008.

54 operative risk patients with stage I NSCLC, SBRT is not recommended outside of a clinical trial.

55 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxici

56 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR,

57 evidence that the theoretical advantages of SBRT over other radiation therapies actually occur in th

58 ew patients with oligometastases, the aim of SBRT in this setting is to achieve local control and del

59 We investigated the clinical benefit of SBRT for managing spinal metastases and reducing cancer-

60 ip for tumor control with escalating dose of SBRT.

61 ility in predicting patients at high risk of SBRT-induced VCF.

62 ess the relative effectiveness and safety of SBRT versus other forms of external-beam radiation thera

63 des a broad overview of the current state of SBRT for solid malignant tumors.

64 Two trials of SBRT for patients with active HCC unsuitable for standar

65 mendations are provided regarding the use of SBRT in high operative risk patients and for inoperative

66 Use of SBRT with erlotinib for unselected patients with stage I

67 SBRT followed by RFA for local progression (SBRT-RFA), and (d) RFA followed by SBRT for local progre

68 ment followed by SBRT for local progression (SBRT-SBRT), (b) RFA followed by RFA for local progressio

69 omes between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC.

70 eatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung

71 velopment of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), building on improvements in delivery achieved by

72 rts in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

73 after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

74 omes between lung stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and wedge resection for stage I non-small-cell lun

75 stemic chemotherapy and were able to receive SBRT and concurrent erlotinib until disease progression.

76 beneficiaries age >/= 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer fr

77 ere treated with 16 of 24 patients receiving SBRT to more than one site.

78 e for anatomic lobectomy; of those receiving SBRT, 95% were medically inoperable, with 5% refusing su

79 Although these data are retrospective, SBRT appears to be a reasonable first-line treatment of

80 RFA-SBRT was the preferred strategy, because RFA-RFA and SBR

81 RFA-SBRT yielded 1.558 QALYs and cost $193 288.

82 y threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, RFA-SBRT was preferred in 65.8% of simulations.

83 followed by SBRT for local progression (RFA-SBRT).

84 at $558 679 per QALY gained relative to RFA-SBRT.

85 In all evaluated scenarios, SBRT was preferred as salvage therapy for local progress

86 in a variety of organs and sites have shown SBRT to result in good outcomes in properly selected pat

87 ctices in assessing tumour response to spine SBRT.

88 registered clinical trials specific to spine SBRT.

89 esults provide strong rationale for studying SBRT for HCC in a randomized trial.

90 l toxicity profile, there is great hope that SBRT will find a prominent place in the treatment of met

91 We review published work showing that SBRT offers durable local control and the potential for

92 Many non-randomised studies have shown that SBRT for oligometastases is safe and effective, with loc

93 The SBRT dose range was 24 to 54 Gy in six fractions.

94 However, the SBRT group had lower pretreatment Child-Pugh scores (P =

95 f 47 measurable lesions recurring within the SBRT field.

96 l using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in this population.

97 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatme

98 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is derived from the techniques of stereotactic rad

99 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is generally a tumor-ablative radiation modality u

100 Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to manage spinal metastases,

101 on with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may help systemic agents delay relapse.

102 Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) uses advanced technology to deliver a potent ablat

103 ness of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients

104 on with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

105 and many patients in need of local therapy, SBRT has found a place in the routine cancer-fighting ar

106 ates of local control are achieved with this SBRT regimen in medically inoperable patients with stage

107 rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation wit

108 Prospective trials using SBRT have confirmed the efficacy of treatment in a varie

109 tion of patients selected for surgery versus SBRT (medically inoperable) at physician discretion, OS

110 However, to test whether SBRT really does improve progression-free survival, rand

111 , P = .07), and LRR (5% v 29%, P = .03) with SBRT.

112 ere was decreased FFLP for RFA compared with SBRT (HR, 3.35; P = .025).

113 o [HR], 1.54 per cm; P = .006), but not with SBRT (HR, 1.21 per cm; P = .617).

114 tients with 410 spinal segments treated with SBRT were included.

115 n patients with 63 lesions were treated with SBRT.