Aim: To provide a multi-institutional consensus document for stereotactic body radiotherapy of primary renal cell carcinoma. Materials & methods: Eight international institutions completed a 65-item survey covering patient selection, planning/treatment aspects and response evaluation. Results: All centers treat patients with pre-existing hypertension and solitary kidneys. Five institutions apply size constraints of 5–8 cm. The total planning target volume expansion is 3–10 mm. All institutions perform pretreatment imaging verification, while seven institutions perform some form of intrafractional monitoring. Number of fractions used are 1–12 to a total dose of 25 Gy–80 GyE. Imaging follow-up for local tumor response includes computed tomography (n = 8), PET-computed tomography (n = 1) and MRI (n = 5). Follow-up frequency is 3–6 months for the first 2 years and 3–12 months for subsequent 3 years. Conclusion: Key methods for safe implementation and practice for stereotactic body radiotherapy kidney have been identified and may aid standardization of treatment delivery.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1 Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J. Clin. 65(2), 87–108 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2 Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J. Clin. 63(1), 11–30 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3 Malcolm JB, Bagrodia A, Derweesh IH et al. Comparison of rates and risk factors for developing chronic renal insufficiency, proteinuria and metabolic acidosis after radical or partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 104(4), 476–481 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Kim SP, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA et al. Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Urol. 188(1), 51–57 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5 Demirjian S, Lane BR, Derweesh IH, Takagi T, Fergany A, Campbell SC. Chronic kidney disease due to surgical removal of nephrons: relative rates of progression and survival. J. Urol. 192(4), 1057–1062 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6 Kunkle DA, Uzzo RG. Cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the small renal mass. Cancer 113(10), 2671–2680 (2008). • Outcomes of competitive modalities of ablation are outlined in this study.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7 Zagoria RJ, Hawkins AD, Clark PE et al. Percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal neoplasms: factors influencing success. Am. J. Roentgenol. 183(1), 201–207 (2004). • Limitation of percutaneous ablative techniques are outlined in this review.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8 Lo SS, Fakiris AJ, Chang EL et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: a novel treatment modality. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7(1), 44–54 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9 Siva S, Pham D, Gill S, Corcoran NM, Foroudi F. A systematic review of stereotactic radiotherapy ablation for primary renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 110(11 Pt B), E737–E743 (2012). •• A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from patients receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10 Staehler M, Bader M, Schlenker B et al. Single fraction radiosurgery for the treatment of renal tumors. J. Urol. 193(3), 771–775 (2015). •• Large series of 30 patients receiving SBRT for primary RCC.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11 Pham D, Thompson A, Kron T et al. Stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy for primary kidney cancer: a 3-dimensional conformal technique associated with low rates of early toxicity. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 90(5), 1061–1068 (2014). •• Publication of treatment technique and preliminary outcomes of the first published Phase Ib study of SBRT for primary RCC.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12 McBride SM, Wagner AA, Kaplan ID. A Phase 1 dose-escalation study of robotic radiosurgery in inoperable primary renal cell carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 87(Suppl. 2), S84 (2013).
Google Scholar
13 Ponsky L, Lo SS, Zhang Y et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for poor surgical candidates with localized renal cell carcinoma. Radiother. Oncol. 117(1), 183–187 (2015). •• Important Phase Ia dose-escalation study giving evidence for dose/fractionation in the setting of primary RCC, as well as demonstrating potential issues of routine post-treatment biopsy.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14 Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45(2), 228–247 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15 Timmerman R, Galvin J, Gore E, Pass H, Edelman M, Kong F. RTOG 0618 A Phase II trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the treatment of patients with operable stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer. RTOG. Philadelphia, PA, USA (2007).
Google Scholar
16 Mickisch G, Garin A, Van Poppel H, De Prijck L, Sylvester R. Radical nephrectomy plus interferon-alfa-based immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 358(9286), 966–970 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17 Clinical trials database: NCT01099423. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01099423.
Google Scholar
18 Clinical trials database: NCT00930033. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00930033.
Google Scholar
19 Formenti SC, Demaria S. Combining radiotherapy and cancer immunotherapy: a paradigm shift. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 105(4), 256–265 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20 Siva S, Macmanus MP, Martin RF, Martin OA. Abscopal effects of radiation therapy: a clinical review for the radiobiologist. Cancer Lett. 356(1), 82–90 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21 Loh J, Davis ID, Martin JM, Siva S. Extracranial oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma: current management and future directions. Future Oncol. 10(5), 761–774 (2014).
CASGoogle Scholar
22 Ortiz-Alvarado O, Anderson JK. The role of radiologic imaging and biopsy in renal tumor ablation. World J. Urol. 28(5), 551–557 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23 Tsivian M, Kim CY, Caso JR, Rosenberg MD, Nelson RC, Polascik TJ. Contrast enhancement on computed tomography after renal cryoablation: an evidence of treatment failure? J. Endourol. 26(4), 330–335 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24 Nielsen TK, Østraat Ø, Andersen G, Høyer S, Graumann O, Borre M. CT contrast enhancement following renal cryoablation – does it represent treatment failure? J. Endourol. 29(12), 1353–1360 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25 Weight CJ, Kaouk JH, Hegarty NJ et al. Correlation of radiographic imaging and histopathology following cryoablation and radio frequency ablation for renal tumors. J. Urol. 179(4), 1277–1283 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26 Ellis RJ, Patel RB, Kunos C et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for renal cancer: Phase I safety and toxicity. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 84(3), S119 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27 Crook J, Perry G, Robertson S, Esche B. Routine prostate biopsies following radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results for 226 patients. Urology 45(4), 624–632 (1995).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28 D'alimonte L, Helou J, Sherman C et al. The clinical significance of persistent cancer cells on prostate biopsy after high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 14(3), 309–314 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29 Spaulding MB, Fischer SG, Wolf GT. Tumor response, toxicity, and survival after neoadjuvant organ-preserving chemotherapy for advanced laryngeal carcinoma. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Laryngeal Cancer Study Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 12(8), 1592–1599 (1994).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30 Chan AW, Ancukiewicz M, Carballo N, Montgomery W, Wang C. The role of postradiotherapy neck dissection in supraglottic carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 50(2), 367–375 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31 Chang JY, Senan S, Paul MA et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 16(6), 630–637 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 12, No. 5

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 532 times

History

Published online 3 February 2016

Published in print March 2016

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

S Siva, BS Teh, T Nomiya, P Wersall, M Staehler, A Muacevic, H Onishi do not have conflicts of interest relevant to the present work. SS Lo has received travel expenses and honorarium from Varian Medical Systems and research support from Elekta, and received travel support and honorarium from Accuray to speak in a users’ meeting. RJ Ellis has received research funding from Elekta AB and Philips. A Muacevic has received speakers honoraria from Accuray. L Ponsky has received research grants from Accuray. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download