Multi-Institutional Comparison of Ablative 5-Fraction Magnetic Resonance-Guided Online Adaptive Versus 15/25-Fraction Computed Tomography-Guided Moderately Hypofractionated Offline Adapted Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
by
, , , , , , ,
Michael D. Chuong
1,*
,
Eileen M. O’Reilly
2
,
Robert A. Herrera
1
,
Melissa Zinovoy
3,
Kathryn E. Mittauer
1,
Muni Rubens
4,
Adeel Kaiser
1,
Paul B. Romesser
3,
Nema Bassiri-Gharb
1,
Abraham J. Wu
3,
John J. Cuaron
3,
Alonso N. Gutierrez
1,
Carla Hajj
3,
Antonio Ucar
5,
Fernando DeZarraga
5,
Santiago Aparo
5,
Christopher H. Crane
3 and
Marsha Reyngold
3 1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL 33176, USA
2
Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
3
Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
4
Office of Clinical Research, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL 33176, USA
5
Department of Medical Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL 33176, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2025, 17(15), 2596; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17152596
Submission received: 9 July 2025
/
Revised: 31 July 2025
/
Accepted: 6 August 2025
/
Published: 7 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Therapy)
Simple Summary
We conducted the first comparison of dose-escalated 5-fraction SMART and 15/25-fraction HART for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite a higher proportion of tumors treated with SMART being located in the pancreatic head and presenting with anatomically unfavorable features, target volume coverage and hotspot intensities were greater in SMART plans, potentially facilitated by the use of online adaptive radiation therapy. Two-year local failure was significantly lower with SMART compared to HART, although two-year overall survival did not differ significantly. Both dose-escalated SMART and HART achieved favorable oncologic outcomes and should be evaluated in future prospective trials.
Abstract
Background: Radiation dose escalation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) using stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) or computed tomography (CT)-guided moderately hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy (HART) can achieve favorable outcomes although have not previously been compared. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective analysis of SMART (50 Gy/5 fractions) vs. HART (75 Gy/25 fractions or 67.5 Gy/15 fractions with concurrent capecitabine) for LAPC. Gray’s test and Cox proportional regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with local failure (LF) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 211 patients (SMART, n = 91; HART, n = 120) were evaluated, and none had surgery. Median follow-up after SMART and HART was 27.0 and 40.0 months, respectively (p < 0.0002). SMART achieved higher gross tumor volume (GTV) coverage and greater hotspots. Two-year LF after SMART and HART was 6.5% and 32.9% (p < 0.001), while two-year OS was 31.0% vs. 35.3% (p = 0.056), respectively. LF was associated with SMART vs. HART (HR 5.389, 95% CI: 1.298–21.975; p = 0.021) and induction mFOLFIRINOX vs. non-mFOLFIRINOX (HR 2.067, 95% CI 1.038–4.052; p = 0.047), while OS was associated with CA19-9 decrease > 40% (HR 0.725, 95% CI 0.515–0.996; p = 0.046) and GTV V120% (HR 1.022, 95% CI 1.006–1.037; p = 0.015). Acute grade > 3 toxicity was similar (3.3% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.390), while late grade > 3 toxicity was less common after SMART (2.2% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.037). Conclusions: Ablative SMART and HART both achieve favorable oncologic outcomes for LAPC with minimal toxicity. We did not observe an OS difference, although technical advantages of SMART might improve target coverage and reduce LF.
1. Introduction
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is projected to be the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2030 [1,2]. Radiation therapy (RT) remains controversial for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) [3]. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of RT versus chemotherapy alone, thus leading to debate about its optimal utilization [4,5]. However, prior trials have routinely limited the prescribed biologically effective dose (BED)10 to ~60–70 Gy10, owing to the proximity of pancreatic tumors to gastrointestinal (GI) organs at risk (OARs) [6].
Recent studies suggest that ablative radiation therapy (A-RT) for LAPC can be delivered safely using advanced techniques that incorporate motion management and novel image guidance strategies, which might improve both LC and OS [7]. Two of the most commonly reported A-RT techniques are 5-fraction stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) [8,9,10,11,12,13,14] and 15/25-fraction computed tomography (CT)-guided moderately hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy (HART) [15,16]. Two-year OS after induction chemotherapy and A-RT was 40.5% [9] in the multi-center phase 2 SMART trial and 38% after HART in two single-institution retrospective analyses, while the historical two-year OS from the time of diagnosis with chemotherapy +/− non-ablative RT is ~25% [4,5,16,17].
While oncologic outcomes after both SMART and HART are promising, these treatment strategies have not previously been compared, leading to uncertainty about whether there are meaningful differences.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Participants
This multi-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients from two high-volume PDAC institutions in the United States. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from both institutions and a waiver of informed consent was granted as this was a minimal-risk study (IRB approval: 1880120 and 16-370A).
All patients had histologically confirmed LAPC and were treated either with 5-fraction SMART or 15/25-fraction HART without surgery as per institutional standard of care. SMART was exclusively used for patients treated at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI; Miami, FL, USA). while HART was used for all patients from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC; New York, NY, USA), where an MR-Linac was not yet available. Patients were included regardless of induction chemotherapy status, CA19-9 level, and tumor size. Patients with distant metastases prior to RT were excluded, as were patients who had prior abdominal RT and definitive surgery after A-RT.
Initial staging was typically performed with pancreatic protocol contrast-enhanced CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis at the MSKCC, which offered HART, while a CT scan of the chest and MRI scan of the abdomen was routine at the MCI, which treated with SMART. Staging positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans were rarely used at both institutions.
2.2. Five-Fraction SMART
The SMART planning and delivery approach has been previously published [18]. Briefly, SMART was delivered on a 0.35 Tesla (T) MR-Linac (ViewRay, Oakwood Village, OH, USA) using a step-and-shoot approach typically with ~17–20 beams at various angles and ~40–60 total segments [19]. MR simulation was performed using the MR-Linac without contrast and without fiducial markers. Treatment was usually delivered with continuous intrafraction multi-planar cine-MRI and automatic beam gating, typically with mid-inspiration breath hold (BH). Online adaptive replanning was performed when there was a predicted GI OAR constraint violation based on the original plan’s fluence imposed on the patient’s anatomy on each treatment day.
Nearly all SMART patients (n = 87; 95.6%) were prescribed 50 Gy in 5 fractions (BED10 = 100 Gy10); 4 (4.4%) were prescribed 45 Gy in 5 fractions (BED10 = 85.5 Gy10). The GTV included the primary tumor and clinically involved lymph nodes. A microscopic clinical target volume (CTVmicroscopic) was routine and included an approximately 5–10 mm margin around the gross tumor volume (GTV), celiac artery (CA), and superior mesenteric artery (SMA); the porta hepatis and/or para-aortic regions were included based on physician preference. The CTV was prescribed 33 Gy in 5 fractions using a simultaneous integrated boost. The PTV50 and PTV33 were created from an isotropic 3 mm expansion of the GTV and CTVmicroscopic, respectively. A 3 mm GI planning OAR volume (PRV) was standard. Select dose constraints include the following: stomach/duodenum/small bowel V35Gy < 0.5 cc, V40Gy < 0.03 cc; large bowel V38Gy < 0.5 cc, V43Gy < 0.03 cc [10]. An isotoxicity planning approach was used, by which plans were normalized to a GI OAR constraint to optimize target coverage. There was no formal maximum hotspot constraint, with hotspots intended to be ~130–140% of the prescribed dose.
SMART patients did not receive concurrent chemotherapy or prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).
2.3. Fifteen/Twenty-Five-Fraction HART
HART was delivered on a conventional linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), as previously described [7]. Briefly, prior to simulation, patients without metal stents or surgical clips underwent fiducial placement. CT simulation was performed using intravenous contrast unless contraindicated with RPM-mediated motion management. Motion management consisted of deep inspiration breath hold when tolerable or end-expiratory gating. Treatment was delivered using kilovoltage (kV) X-ray stereoscopic planar images and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for image guidance with intermittent kV intrafraction motion monitoring.
If there was no abutment of the GTV with luminal GI OARs, then the prescribed dose to gross disease and an elective volume was 67.5 Gy (BED10 = 97.88 Gy10) and 37.5 Gy (BED10 = 46.88 Gy10) in 15 fractions, respectively. Otherwise, the prescribed dose to gross disease and an elective volume was 75 Gy (BED10 = 97.5Gy10) and 45 Gy in 25 fractions (BED10 = 53.1 Gy10), respectively.
The GTV contour included the primary tumor and clinically involved lymph nodes. A mandatory CTVmicroscopic was created from a 10 mm expansion around the GTV, CA, and SMA, as well as any vessels involved by the tumor, +/− the portal vein and splenic hilum for select tumors based on location. The PTV encompassing gross disease was created using a 5 mm isotropic expansion and subsequently excluding GI OARs with an extra 5–7 mm margin. The PTV encompassing the elective volume was created by adding a 5 mm isotropic margin to the CTVmicroscopic. A 3–5 mm GI OAR PRV was standard. Fractionation-dependent GI OAR constraints have been previously published [7]. For the 15-fraction regimen, stomach/duodenum/small bowel constraints included Dmax < 45 Gy and V37.5Gy < 40 cc, as well as D5cc of the corresponding PRV < 45 Gy. For the 25-fraction regimen, stomach/duodenum/small bowel constraints included Dmax < 60 Gy, V45Gy < 40 cc and D5cc of the corresponding PRV < 60 Gy. The maximum PTV dose was typically constrained to 115–120% of prescription, unless a deliberate 130% hotspot was selectively placed inside large tumors (N-17, 14.2%), as previously described [7].
Weekly CBCT review was performed to estimate the percentage of time that luminal GI OARs overlapped with the 45 Gy and 60 Gy isodose lines (IDLs) for 15- and 25-fraction regimens, respectively. Selective replanning was performed halfway through the treatment course if OARs were overlapped by these critical IDLs more than 33% of the time, and this was performed for 11 patients (9.2%).
Nearly all patients treated with HART received concurrent capecitabine at 825 mg/m2 twice daily on the days of HART (n = 117, 97.5%). Prophylactic PPIs or H2 receptor antagonists were selectively used.
2.4. Additional Therapy After SMART/HART
The use of maintenance chemotherapy was at the discretion of the treating oncologist. No patient had definitive surgery for PDAC after SMART or HART.
2.5. Response Assessment After SMART/HART
The follow-up protocol at both institutions was similar and included physical examination, diagnostic imaging studies, and labs including CA19-9 every 3 months after A-RT. Diagnostic imaging studies typically consisted of CT and/or MRI, while PET/CT scans were occasionally ordered to clarify equivocal CT/MRI scan and CA19-9 changes.
2.6. Toxicity
Acute and late adverse events were defined as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 and occurred within or after 3 months of RT, respectively.
2.7. Statistical Analysis
A comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics between the SMART and HART cohorts was conducted. Categorical and continuous variables were compared by a chi-square test and t-test, respectively.
Local failure (LF) and distant failure (DF) were estimated by the Fine and Gray method, with death as a competing risk and compared between the SMART and HART cohorts by the Gray’s test. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared between the SMART and HART cohorts by the log-rank test. These analyses were performed from the start of SMART/HART. To account for potential imbalances between the SMART and HART cohorts, we attempted to perform propensity score matching.
LF was defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 using the diagnostic scan reports. Gray’s test and competing risk regression was used to identify factors associated with LF and DF. Cox proportional regression was used to identify factors associated with OS. Variables with a p value < 0.1 in the univariate analysis (UVA) were included in the final multivariate analysis (MVA). Variance inflation factor greater than 10 were set as the cut-off for multicollinearity and excluded from the models. All tests were two-sided, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
3. Results
A total of 211 patients (SMART, n = 91; HART, n = 120) were evaluated. Patients were treated with SMART and HART in 2018–2023 and 2016–2019, respectively. Baseline patient and tumor characteristics are described in Table 1. Tumors treated with SMART were more often located in the head of the pancreas (80.2% vs. 62.5%; p = 0.005) and had a higher volume of GI OARs located within isotropic 3 mm (median 1.4 vs. 1.0 cc; p = 0.036) or 5 mm (3.9 vs. 2.8 cc; p = 0.028) expansions around the GTV, respectively. Despite this, SMART plans were hotter and had higher target coverage based on comparison of the original plans (Table 2).
Median follow-up for SMART/HART was 27.0 vs. 40.0 months (p < 0.0002), respectively. Two-year cumulative incidence of LF and DF from SMART vs. HART was 6.5% vs. 32.9% (p < 0.001) and 68.3% vs. 71.5% (p = 0.576), respectively (Figure 1A,B). After matching for “GTV + 5mm overlap with GI OARs” and “N stage”, there was an insufficient number of patients to evaluate whether a significant LF difference existed due to sparse data bias. Median PFS and OS from SMART/HART were 7.0 vs. 5.0 months (p = 0.792), and 14.0 vs. 17.0 months (p = 0.217), respectively (Table 3). Two-year PFS and OS for SMART vs. HART were 15.9% vs. 14.1% (p = 0.991), and 31.0% vs. 35.3% (p = 0.056), respectively (Figure 1C,D). After matching for “age “and “N stage”, we found no statistically significant difference in OS.
Dosimetric characteristics of the original (not adapted) SMART and HART plans associated with LF (n = 36) vs. no LF (n = 171) are shown in Table 4. There was no difference in GTV or proximity to GI OARs. Higher GTV coverage and plans with higher hotspots were more common among patients with no LF.
Significant factors associated with LF on MVA included use of HART vs. SMART (reference) (hazard ratio [HR] 5.389, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.298–21.975; p = 0.021) and non-mFOLFIRINOX vs. mFOLFIRINOX induction (reference) (HR 2.067, 95% CI 1.038–4.052; p = 0.046 (Table 5). Several dosimetric parameters from the original plans, as shown in Table 5, were significantly associated on UVA but not on MVA. Factors associated with OS on MVA included post-induction CA19-9 decrease > 40% vs. ≤40% (reference) (HR 0.725, 95% CI 0.515–0.996; p = 0.046) and GTV V120% as a continuous variable (HR 1.022, 95% CI 1.006–1.037; p = 0.015).
The incidence of acute grade 3 toxicity was similar in the SMART and HART cohorts (3.3% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.390) and included bowel obstruction/stenosis (n = 6), GI bleeding (n = 3), and abdominal pain (n = 1). There was no acute grade 4–5 toxicity. Late grade > 3 toxicity was less common among patients treated with SMART (2.2% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.037). Late grade 3 toxicities included GI bleeding (n = 10), gastric obstruction (n = 1), and duodenitis (n = 1). One late grade 4 adverse event (duodenal perforation) occurred in a patient treated with HART, while there was no late grade 4–5 toxicity in the SMART cohort. No grade > 3 acute or late toxicity occurred in HART patients who underwent selective offline adaptive replanning.
4. Discussion
There has been growing enthusiasm about the potential for radiation dose escalation to improve outcomes for LAPC patients although technological limitations have restricted the routine use of ablative RT [20,21,22,23,24].
Two novel treatment strategies for delivering ablative radiation dose for LAPC have resulted in encouraging clinical outcomes. In 2016, Krishnan and colleagues at the MD Anderson Cancer Center first published retrospective HART outcomes most commonly in 15 or 28 fractions with CT-on-rails or CBCT guidance and concurrent capecitabine [16]. Patients prescribed a BED10 > 70 Gy10 had improved OS (2-year: 36% vs. 19%, 3-year: 31% vs. 9%). The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s retrospective outcomes using a similar approach in 15 or 25 fractions (both having a prescribed BED10 ~98 Gy10) with CBCT, selective offline adaptive replanning, and concurrent capecitabine included a 2-year LF and OS after HART of 32.8% and 38%, respectively, and acceptable incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity [17]. On the other hand, SMART features MRI guidance, continuous intrafraction imaging, automatic beam gating, and online adaptive replanning [25]. Early studies suggested that these advanced capabilities could allow the ablative dose to be safely delivered in five fractions [26]. Recently published results of the multi-center phase 2 SMART trial (n = 136) that prescribed 50 Gy in five fractions (BED10 = 100 Gy10) provide prospective confirmation that SMART is safe; the primary endpoint of acute grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity definitely attributed to SMART was met, with the reported incidence being 0% [8]. In an updated analysis, the study investigators reported an encouraging 2-year OS of 40.5% for SMART, and the incidence of late grade ≥ 3 toxicity probably or definitely related to SMART was < 5% [9].
An unanswered question is whether clinical outcomes for LAPC differ between 5-fraction SMART and 15/25-fraction HART. The current analysis is, to the best of our knowledge, the first comparison of dosimetric and oncologic outcomes between these treatment approaches. Whereas prior non-ablative studies have consistently reported 2-year LF ~50% [27,28], herein, we report 2-year LF rates that are among the lowest in the published literature for PC (SMART: 6.5% vs. HART: 32.9%; Gray’s p < 0.001). We believe that our analysis is clinically meaningful as it addresses an outstanding question about optimal technology triage when dose escalating RT for LAPC, especially considering that few centers currently have an MR-Linac, while HART can be performed at most centers that offer advanced motion management on a conventional linac.
Our evaluation of SMART and HART treatment plans showed that patients who experienced LF had inferior GTV coverage than those who did not have LF, especially with respect to D90% and D80%. Moreover, treatment plans associated with LF had lower hotspots, but not a lower Dmin, suggesting treatment techniques that can deliver higher dose to more of the GTV may decrease LF. Interestingly, treatment technique (SMART vs. HART) was a significant factor on MVA for LF, while dosimetric target coverage variables were not. It is likely that dosimetric parameters are not independent of technique, as a different set of planning procedures was used. In addition, we evaluated dosimetric outcomes of the original plans, and it is uncertain whether our results would have been different if the adapted plans had been evaluated, especially as the original SMART plans were rarely delivered. As such, we are unable to separate the effect of dosimetric differences from the effect of other aspects of treatment planning and delivery between SMART and HART, including fractionation scheme, quality of on-board imaging, and frequency of online adaptive replanning.
There are several novel components of SMART delivered on a 0.35T MR-Linac, including MRI guidance and online adaptation, although the current study was not designed to comprehensively evaluate the relative benefits of each compared to HART. Nonetheless, it is plausible that daily online adaptive replanning might have facilitated a lower incidence of LF by optimizing target coverage at least in part by supporting a more permissive set of constraints. While online adaptive replanning is available on some CT-guided linacs [29], it is unclear whether using such technology achieves similar outcomes as we have reported with SMART. In addition, while the total prescribed BED10 was similar for SMART and HART, it is possible that our LF outcomes may have been influenced by radiobiologic differences related to fraction size; enhanced indirect cell killing mechanisms, such as endothelial cell apoptosis mediated by the sphingomyelin pathway and tumor vascular damage, may be triggered by fraction sizes of at least 10 Gy, which was routine for SMART [30,31,32].
While elective volume coverage is not common for treating LAPC, especially with stereotactic body radiation therapy, SMART and HART patients were routinely treated with an anatomically derived CTV [33,34,35]. Elective volume coverage might have contributed to achieving favorable LF rates, at least in part since the true extent of PDAC is poorly represented on imaging studies, resulting in the potential for the GTV to be undercontoured [36]. In addition, PDAC is well known to have occult microscopic extension along perineural tracks and within regional lymph nodes, resulting in a high rate of marginal and out-of-field recurrence after targeting only the gross tumor [37,38]. A contouring atlas was recently published for the upcoming phase 3 NRG GI011 randomized trial that will require elective coverage in the dose-escalated RT arm [39].
We did not observe a statistically significant difference in median OS (14.0 vs. 17.0 months; p = 0.217) or 2-year OS (31.0% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.056) after SMART compared to HART. The lower LF achieved with SMART could have hypothetically impacted OS, either by decreasing deaths from uncontrolled local tumor growth or reducing the number of cells with metastatic potential [40]. However, it is possible that we did not detect an OS difference as various patient, tumor, and treatment factors also impact OS. Nonetheless, we believe that the promising long-term OS achieved after both SMART and HART supports further prospective evaluation of radiation dose escalation for LAPC.
We recognize several limitations of this study, especially its retrospective design, which introduces the potential for underreporting of toxicity and selection bias. Institutional differences in planning techniques are likely to have influenced dosimetric outcomes irrespective of treatment technique, and dosimetric evaluation was not performed on the adapted plans. Furthermore, institutional differences in the staging, systemic therapy delivery, and patient support pathways may have contributed to the differences in outcomes.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this analysis adds to the published literature by demonstrating that SMART and HART can safely deliver an ablative dose with routine elective coverage and achieve favorable LF and OS rates for select patients with LAPC following induction chemotherapy. The data reported herein support either SMART or HART for treatment of LAPC. The preferred technique may, in large part, depend on the available technology and experience at each institution. Although differences in dosimetric and clinical outcomes were observed, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and support future prospective evaluation. We encourage enrollment to clinical trials that aim to clarify the role of A-RT for LAPC.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.D.C., M.R. (Marsha Reyngold), and C.H.C.; methodology, M.D.C. and M.R. (Marsha Reyngold); formal analysis, M.R. (Muni Rubens), data curation, M.D.C. and M.R. (Marsha Reyngold), writing—original draft preparation, M.D.C. and M.R. (Marsha Reyngold); writing—review and editing, E.M.O., R.A.H., M.Z., K.E.M., M.R. (Marsha Reyngold), A.K., P.B.R., N.B.-G., A.J.W., J.J.C., A.N.G., C.H., A.U., F.D., S.A., C.H.C., and M.R. (Muni Rubens); visualization, M.R. (Muni Rubens), supervision, M.D.C., C.H.C., and M.R. (Marsha Reyngold). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Miami Cancer Institute (IRB approval: 1880120) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (IRB approval: 16-370A, 6 October 2023).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability Statement
Research data are stored in an institutional repository and will be made available upon request to the corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest
M.D.C. has received research funding from ViewRay, Novocure, and StratPharma, honoraria from ViewRay and IBA, and has leadership positions in the Proton Collaborative Group, Particle Therapy Cooperative Group, and the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. E.M.O.R has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, BioNTech, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Elicio, Parker Institute, NIH/NCI, Digestive Care, Break Through Cancer, Agenus, and has contributed to unpaid consulting/DSMB work with Arcus, AstraZeneca, Ability Pharma, Alligator BioSciences, Agenus, BioNTech, Ipsen, Merck, Moma Therapeutics, Novartis, Leap Therapeutics, Astellas, BMS, Revolution Medicines, Regeneron, Merus, Tango. K.E.M. reports research funding and consulting fees/honoraria from Viewray and ownership of MR Guidance LLC. P.B.R. has received research funding from XRAD Therapeutics and EMD Serono, consulting fees from Natera, Faeth Therapeutics, and EMD Serono, and participates in medical board for HPV Cancers Alliance and Anal Cancer Foundation. A.J.W. participates on scientific advisory board and has restricted stock options for Simphotek. C.H.C. has received research funding and honoraria from Elekta and participates on advisory board for Trisalus. M.R. has received research funding and honoraria from Elekta and is a member of the NCCN pancreatic cancer guidelines panel. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| A-RT | Ablative radiation therapy |
| BED | Biological effective dose |
| BH | Breath hold |
| CA | Celiac artery |
| CBCT | Cone beam computed tomography |
| CI | Confidence interval |
| CT | Computed tomography |
| CTCAE | Common terminology criteria for adverse events |
| CTV | Clinical tumor volume |
| DF | Distant failure |
| GI | Gastrointestinal |
| GTV | Gross tumor volume |
| HART | Hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy |
| HR | Hazard ratio |
| IDLs | Isodose lines |
| IRB | Institutional review board |
| kV | Kilovoltage |
| LAPC | Locally advanced pancreatic cancer |
| LF | Local failure |
| MCI | Miami Cancer Institute |
| MR | Magnetic resonance |
| MSKCC | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center |
| MVA | Multivariate analysis |
| OARs | Organs at risk |
| OS | Overall survival |
| PDAC | Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma |
| PET | Position emission tomography |
| PFS | Progression-free survival |
| PPIs | Prophylactic proton pump inhibitors |
| PRV | Planning OAR volume |
| RECIST | Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors |
| RT | Radiation therapy |
| SMA | Superior mesenteric artery |
| SMART | Stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy |
| T | Tesla |
| UVA | Univariate analysis |
| VMAT | Volumetric modulated arc therapy |
References
- Siegel, R.L.; Giaquinto, A.N.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024, 74, 12–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahib, L.; Smith, B.D.; Aizenberg, R.; Rosenzweig, A.B.; Fleshman, J.M.; Matrisian, L.M. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: The unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 2913–2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, W.; Chawla, A.; O’Reilly, E.M. Pancreatic cancer: A review. JAMA 2021, 326, 851–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammel, P.; Huguet, F.; van Laethem, J.-L.; Goldstein, D.; Glimelius, B.; Artru, P.; Borbath, I.; Bouché, O.; Shannon, J.; André, T. Effect of chemoradiotherapy vs chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib: The LAP07 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016, 315, 1844–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fietkau, R.; Ghadimi, M.; Grützmann, R.; Wittel, U.A.; Jacobasch, L.; Uhl, W.; Croner, R.S.; Bechstein, W.O.; Neumann, U.P.; Waldschmidt, D. Randomized phase III trial of induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy alone for nonresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: First results of the CONKO-007 trial. In Proceedings of the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA, 3–7 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Herman, J.M.; Chang, D.T.; Goodman, K.A.; Dholakia, A.S.; Raman, S.P.; Hacker-Prietz, A.; Iacobuzio-Donahue, C.A.; Griffith, M.E.; Pawlik, T.M.; Pai, J.S. Phase 2 multi-institutional trial evaluating gemcitabine and stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2015, 121, 1128–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyngold, M.; Parikh, P.; Crane, C.H. Ablative radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Techniques and results. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 14, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parikh, P.J.; Lee, P.; Low, D.A.; Kim, J.; Mittauer, K.E.; Bassetti, M.F.; Glide-Hurst, C.K.; Raldow, A.C.; Yang, Y.; Portelance, L. A multi-institutional phase 2 trial of ablative 5-fraction stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided on-table adaptive radiation therapy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2023, 117, 799–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuong, M.D.; Lee, P.; Low, D.A.; Kim, J.; Mittauer, K.E.; Bassetti, M.F.; Glide-Hurst, C.K.; Raldow, A.C.; Yang, Y.; Portelance, L. Stereotactic MR-guided on-table adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A multi-center, open-label phase 2 study. Radiother. Oncol. 2024, 191, 110064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuong, M.D.; Bryant, J.; Mittauer, K.E.; Hall, M.; Kotecha, R.; Alvarez, D.; Romaguera, T.; Rubens, M.; Adamson, S.; Godley, A. Ablative 5-fraction stereotactic magnetic resonance–guided radiation therapy with on-table adaptive replanning and elective nodal irradiation for inoperable pancreas cancer. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 11, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassanzadeh, C.; Rudra, S.; Bommireddy, A.; Hawkins, W.G.; Wang-Gillam, A.; Fields, R.C.; Cai, B.; Park, J.; Green, O.; Roach, M. Ablative five-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable pancreatic cancer using online MR-guided adaptation. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 6, 100506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ejlsmark, M.W.; Bahij, R.; Schytte, T.; Hansen, C.R.; Bertelsen, A.; Mahmood, F.; Mortensen, M.B.; Detlefsen, S.; Weber, B.; Bernchou, U. Adaptive MRI-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer—A phase II study. Radiother. Oncol. 2024, 197, 110347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bordeau, K.; Michalet, M.; Keskes, A.; Valdenaire, S.; Debuire, P.; Cantaloube, M.; Cabaillé, M.; Portales, F.; Draghici, R.; Ychou, M. Stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy for pancreatic tumors: Updated results of the Montpellier prospective registry study. Cancers 2022, 15, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michalet, M.; Valenzuela, G.; Nougaret, S.; Tardieu, M.; Azria, D.; Riou, O. Development of multiparametric prognostic models for stereotactic magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy of pancreatic cancers. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2025, 122, 678–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyngold, M.; O’Reilly, E.; Herrera, R.; Kaiser, A.; Zinovoy, M.; Romesser, P.; Wu, A.; Hajj, C.; Cuaron, J.; Ucar, A. Multi-institutional comparison of ablative radiation therapy in 5 versus 15–25 fractions for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2022, 114, S106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnan, S.; Chadha, A.S.; Suh, Y.; Chen, H.-C.; Rao, A.; Das, P.; Minsky, B.D.; Mahmood, U.; Delclos, M.E.; Sawakuchi, G.O. Focal radiation therapy dose escalation improves overall survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients receiving induction chemotherapy and consolidative chemoradiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2016, 94, 755–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyngold, M.; O’Reilly, E.M.; Varghese, A.M.; Fiasconaro, M.; Zinovoy, M.; Romesser, P.B.; Wu, A.; Hajj, C.; Cuaron, J.J.; Tuli, R. Association of ablative radiation therapy with survival among patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 735–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittauer, K.E.; Yarlagadda, S.; Bryant, J.M.; Bassiri, N.; Romaguera, T.; Gomez, A.G.; Herrera, R.; Kotecha, R.; Mehta, M.P.; Gutierrez, A.N. Online adaptive radiotherapy: Assessment of planning technique and its impact on longitudinal plan quality robustness in pancreatic cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2023, 188, 109869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutic, S.; Dempsey, J.F. The ViewRay system: Magnetic resonance–guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2014, 24, 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahadevan, A.; Moningi, S.; Grimm, J.; Li, X.A.; Forster, K.M.; Palta, M.; Prior, P.; Goodman, K.A.; Narang, A.; Heron, D.E. Maximizing tumor control and limiting complications with stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2021, 110, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyer, M.; Roed, H.; Sengelov, L.; Traberg, A.; Ohlhuis, L.; Pedersen, J.; Nellemann, H.; Berthelsen, A.K.; Eberholst, F.; Engelholm, S.A. Phase-II study on stereotactic radiotherapy of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Radiother. Oncol. 2005, 76, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liauw, S.L.; Ni, L.; Wu, T.; Arif, F.; Cloutier, D.; Posner, M.C.; Kozloff, M.; Kindler, H.L. A prospective trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer testing ablative doses. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2020, 11, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rudra, S.; Jiang, N.; Rosenberg, S.; Olsen, J.; Parikh, P.; Bassetti, M.; Lee, P. High dose adaptive MRI guided radiation therapy improves overall survival of inoperable pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 99, E184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simoni, N.; Rossi, G.; Cellini, F.; Vitolo, V.; Orlandi, E.; Valentini, V.; Mazzarotto, R.; Sverzellati, N.; D’Abbiero, N. Ablative radiotherapy (ART) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC): Toward a new paradigm? Life 2022, 12, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benitez, C.M.; Chuong, M.D.; Künzel, L.A.; Thorwarth, D. MRI-guided adaptive radiation therapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2024, 34, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henke, L.; Kashani, R.; Robinson, C.; Curcuru, A.; DeWees, T.; Bradley, J.; Green, O.; Michalski, J.; Mutic, S.; Parikh, P. Phase I trial of stereotactic MR-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for the treatment of oligometastatic or unresectable primary malignancies of the abdomen. Radiother. Oncol. 2018, 126, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quan, K.; Sutera, P.; Xu, K.; Bernard, M.E.; Burton, S.A.; Wegner, R.E.; Zeh, H.; Bahary, N.; Stoller, R.; Heron, D.E. Results of a prospective phase 2 clinical trial of induction gemcitabine/capecitabine followed by stereotactic ablative radiation therapy in borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 8, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teriaca, M.; Loi, M.; Suker, M.; Eskens, F.; van Eijck, C.; Nuyttens, J. A phase II study of stereotactic radiotherapy after FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC-1 trial): Long-term outcome. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 155, 232–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Schaal, D.; Curry, H.; Clark, R.; Magliari, A.; Kupelian, P.; Khuntia, D.; Beriwal, S. Review of cone beam computed tomography based online adaptive radiotherapy: Current trend and future direction. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 18, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Barros, M.; Paris, F.; Cordon-Cardo, C.; Lyden, D.; Rafii, S.; Haimovitz-Friedman, A.; Fuks, Z.; Kolesnick, R. Tumor response to radiotherapy regulated by endothelial cell apoptosis. Science 2003, 300, 1155–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangoni, M.; Borghesi, S.; Aristei, C.; Becherini, C. Radiobiology of stereotactic radiotherapy. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 2022, 27, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, B.; Aili, A.; Xue, L.; Jiang, P.; Wang, J. Advances in radiobiology of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palta, M.; Godfrey, D.; Goodman, K.A.; Hoffe, S.; Dawson, L.A.; Dessert, D.; Hall, W.A.; Herman, J.M.; Khorana, A.A.; Merchant, N. Radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer: Executive summary of an ASTRO clinical practice guideline. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 9, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, T.B.; Haustermans, K.; Huguet, F.; Morganti, A.G.; Mukherjee, S.; Belka, C.; Krempien, R.; Hawkins, M.A.; Valentini, V.; Roeder, F. ESTRO ACROP guidelines for target volume definition in pancreatic cancer. Radiother. Oncol. 2021, 154, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oar, A.; Lee, M.; Le, H.; Hruby, G.; Dalfsen, R.; Pryor, D.; Lee, D.; Chu, J.; Holloway, L.; Briggs, A. Australasian gastrointestinal trials group (AGITG) and trans-tasman radiation oncology group (TROG) guidelines for pancreatic stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 10, e136–e146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arvold, N.D.; Niemierko, A.; Mamon, H.J.; Fernandez-del Castillo, C.; Hong, T.S. Pancreatic cancer tumor size on CT scan versus pathologic specimen: Implications for radiation treatment planning. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2011, 80, 1383–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, X.; Ju, X.; Cao, Y.; Shen, Y.; Cao, F.; Qing, S.; Fang, F.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, H. Patterns of local failure after stereotactic body radiation therapy and sequential chemotherapy as initial treatment for pancreatic cancer: Implications of target volume design. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 104, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kharofa, J.; Mierzwa, M.; Olowokure, O.; Sussman, J.; Latif, T.; Gupta, A.; Xie, C.; Patel, S.; Esslinger, H.; Mcgill, B. Pattern of marginal local failure in a phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreas cancer. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 42, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanford, N.N.; Narang, A.K.; Aguilera, T.A.; Bassetti, M.F.; Chuong, M.D.; Erickson, B.A.; Goodman, K.A.; Herman, J.M.; Intven, M.; Kilcoyne, A. NRG Oncology International Consensus Contouring Atlas on Target Volumes and Dosing Strategies for Dose-Escalated Pancreatic Cancer Radiation Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2024, 121, 918–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuong, M.D.; Herrera, R.; Ucar, A.; Aparo, S.; De Zarraga, F.; Asbun, H.; Jimenez, R.; Asbun, D.; Narayanan, G.; Joseph, S. Causes of death among patients with initially inoperable pancreas cancer after induction chemotherapy and ablative 5-fraction stereotactic magnetic resonance image guided adaptive radiation therapy. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 8, 101084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Cumulative incidence of local (A) and distant failure (B) and Kaplan–Meier plots for progression-free survival (C) and overall survival (D) from the start of stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) or computed tomography-guided moderately hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy (HART).
Figure 1.
Cumulative incidence of local (A) and distant failure (B) and Kaplan–Meier plots for progression-free survival (C) and overall survival (D) from the start of stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) or computed tomography-guided moderately hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy (HART).
Table 1.
Baseline patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.
| SMART (n = 91) | HART (n = 120) | Total (n = 211) | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year), median | 72.0 (47–94) | 68.0 (42–91) | 70.0 (42–94) | 0.004 |
| Gender Male Female | 49 (53.8%) 42 (46.2%) | 59 (49.2%) 61 (50.8%) | 108 (51.2%) 103 (48.8%) | 0.501 |
| ECOG PS 0–1 2 | 85 (93.4%) 6 (6.6%) | 108 (90.0%) 12 (10.0%) | 193 (91.5%) 18 (8.5%) | 0.380 |
| Tumor location Head Body/tail | 73 (80.2%) 18 (19.8%) | 75 (62.5%) 45 (37.5%) | 148 (70.1%) 63 (29.9%) | 0.005 |
| T stage 1–2 3–4 | 23 (25.3%) 68 (74.7%) | 20 (16.7%) 100 (83.3%) | 43 (20.4%) 168 (79.6%) | 0.124 |
| N stage Positive Negative Unknown | 23 (25.3%) 68 (74.7%) 0 (0.0%) | 51 (42.5%) 54 (45.0%) 15 (12.5%) | 74 (35.1%) 122 (57.8%) 15 (7.1%) | < 0.001 |
| Tumor size (cm), median | 3.7 (1.5–6.9) | 3.8 (1.4–7.4) | 3.8 (1.4–7.4) | 0.583 |
| Overlap w/GI OARs (cc), median GTV + 3 mm GTV + 5 mm | 1.4 (0–19.6) 3.9 (0–32.4) | 1.0 (0–12.5) 2.8 (0–24.0) | 1.2 (0–19.6) 3.2 (0–32.4) | 0.036 0.028 |
| CA19-9 baseline (U/mL), median | 156.4 (1.0–19,000) | 166.0 (0–2766) | 165.0 (0–19,000) | 0.780 |
| CA19-9 pre-RT (U/mL), median | 55.0 (1.2–11,534) | 79.0 (0–3507) | 70.0 (0–11,534) | 0.909 |
| Induction chemotherapy duration (month), median | 3.9 (0–9.1) | 3.7 (0–13) | 3.8 (0–13) | 0.531 |
| Induction chemotherapy regimen FOLFIRINOX Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel Gemcitabine/cisplatin Other 5-fluorouracil-based Other gemcitabine-based Other None | 49 (53.8%) 26 (28.6%) 6 (6.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (9.9%) | 66 (55.0%) 37 (30.8%) 4 (3.3%) 4 (3.3%) 5 (4.2%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.5%) | 115 (54.5%) 63 (29.9%) 10 (4.7%) 4 (1.9%) 6 (2.8%) 1 (0.5%) 12 (5.7%) | 0.068 |
| Maintenance chemotherapy Yes No | 6 (6.6%) 85 (93.4%) | 19 (15.8%) 101 (84.2%) | 25 (11.8%) 186 (88.2%) | 0.039 |
ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS = performance status; GI = gastrointestinal; OARs = organs at risk; SMART = stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy; HART = hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy.
Table 2.
Dosimetric comparison between 5-fraction SMART and 15/25-fraction HART.
| SMART (n = 91) | HART (n = 120) | Total (n = 211) | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prescribed BED10 (Gy) 85.5 97.5 97.9 100 | 4 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 87 (95.6%) | 0 (0.0%) 97 (80.8%) 23 (19.2%) 0 (0.0%) | 4 (1.9%) 97 (46.0%) 23 (10.9%) 87 (41.2%) | <0.001 |
| GTV (cc), median | 34.4 (5.6–155.6) | 31.2 (2.2–206.7) | 32.0 (2.2–206.7) | 0.466 |
| GTV D95% scaled (%), median | 91.5 (64.9–119.9) | 76.6 (42.9–108.3) | 82.7 (42.9–119.9) | <0.001 |
| GTV D90% scaled (%), median | 101.1 (74.2–122.2) | 84.5 (44.6–111.7) | 91.2 (44.6–122.2) | <0.001 |
| GTV D80% scaled (%), median | 106.7 (83.3–128.3) | 95.2 (47.8–121.3) | 101.0 (47.8–128.3) | <0.001 |
| GTV V130% (cc), median | 2.8 (0–34.9) | 0 (0–27.4) | 0 (0–34.9) | <0.001 |
| GTV V120% (cc), median | 14.5 (0–79.5) | 0 (0–45.8) | 0 (0–79.5) | <0.001 |
| GTV V100% (cc), median | 29.4 (5.6–124.8) | 20.5 (0–153.6) | 25.4 (0–153.6) | <0.001 |
| GTV min dose scaled (%), median | 66.7 | 60.5 | 62.8 | <0.001 |
BED = biologically effective dose; GTV = gross tumor volume; SMART = stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy; HART = hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy.
Table 3.
Local failure, distant failure, progression-free survival, and overall survival from SMART/HART.
Table 3.
Local failure, distant failure, progression-free survival, and overall survival from SMART/HART.
| Median (Months) | 1-Year (95% CI) | 2-Year (95% CI) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMART | HART | p Value | SMART | HART | p Value | SMART | HART | p Value | |||
| LF | Not reached | 36.8 (29.0–.) | --- | 3.1% (1.9–6.3%) | 11.8% (9.5–15.4% | 0.001 | 6.5% (2.5–14.6%) | 32.9% (26.3–41.1%) | <0.001 | ||
| DF | 6.0 (5.0–10.0) | 7.0 (6.0–14.0) | 0.423 | 57.1% (51.2–62.2%) | 59.1% (52.9–61.1%) | 0.837 | 68.3% (61.2–74.1%) | 71.5% (64.7–78.6%) | 0.576 | ||
| PFS | 7.0 (5.0–8.0) | 5.0 (4.0–7.0) | 0.792 | 29.1% (19.4–38.7%) | 29.8% (21.5–38.0%) | 0.525 | 15.9% (7.8–24.0%) | 14.1% (7.8–20.5%) | 0.991 | ||
| OS | 14.0 (11.0–16.0) | 17.0 (14.0–20.0) | 0.217 | 52.0% (41.0–63.0%) | 62.3% (53.5–71.1%) | 0.272 | 31.0% (20.2–41.9%) | 35.3% (26.5–44.2%) | 0.056 | ||
LF = local failure; DF = distant failure; PFS = progression-free survival; OS = overall survival; SMART = stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy; HART = hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy; CI = confidence interval.
Table 4.
Dosimetric differences between patients who experienced local failure versus no local failure.
Table 4.
Dosimetric differences between patients who experienced local failure versus no local failure.
| No Local Failure (n = 171) | Local Failure (n = 36) | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GTV (cc), median | 32 | 27.5 | 0.177 |
| GI OAR overlap (cc), median GTV + 3 mm isotropic expansion GTV + 5 mm isotropic expansion | 1.2 3.4 | 1 2.9 | 0.274 0.280 |
| GTV D95% scaled (%), median | 83.9 | 77.7 | 0.103 |
| GTV D90% scaled (%), median | 91.7 | 84.3 | 0.042 |
| GTV D80% scaled (%), median | 101.7 | 84.8 | 0.003 |
| GTV V130% (cc), median | 0.1 | 0 | <0.001 |
| GTV V120% (cc), median | 4.9 | 0 | <0.001 |
| GTV V100% (cc), median | 26.5 | 18.1 | 0.036 |
| GTV min dose scaled (%), median | 42 | 46.5 | <0.001 |
GTV = gross tumor volume; GI = gastrointestinal; OAR = organ at risk.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for local failure and overall survival after ablative radiation therapy.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for local failure and overall survival after ablative radiation therapy.
| LF | OS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
| HR (95% CI) | p Value | HR (95% CI) | p Value | HR (95% CI) | p Value | HR (95% CI) | p Value | |
| Age (year) | ||||||||
| >Median | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| ≤Median | 1.012 (0.525–1.902) | 0.958 | 1.141 (0.836–1.556) | 0.406 | ||||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Female | 1.085 (0.573–2.049) | 0.826 | 1.068 (0.783–1.457) | 0.678 | ||||
| ECOG performance status | ||||||||
| 0–1 | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| 2 | 1.152 (0.537–1.983) | 0.624 | 1.238 (0.726–2.109) | 0.433 | ||||
| Tumor location | ||||||||
| Body/tail | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Head | 0.982 (0.512–1.874) | 0.915 | 1.228 (0.874–1.725) | 0.238 | ||||
| T stage | ||||||||
| 1–2 | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| 3–4 | 1.150 (0.518–2.532) | 0.751 | 0.977 (0.672–1.422) | 0.905 | ||||
| N stage | ||||||||
| N− | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| N+ | 1.048 (0.535–2.049) | 0.905 | 0.951 (0.683–1.324) | 0.766 | ||||
| N/A | 1.345 (0.395–4.590) | 0.645 | 1.020 (0.558–1.863) | 0.949 | ||||
| Tumor size | ||||||||
| >Median | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| ≤Median | 0.762 (0.401–1.435) | 0.361 | 0.904 (0.661–1.236) | 0.527 | ||||
| GTV volume | ||||||||
| >Median | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| ≤Median | 1.099 (0.578–2.102) | 0.790 | 1.279 (0.938–1.744) | 0.119 | ||||
| Radiation technique | ||||||||
| 5-fraction SMART | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| 15/25-fraction HART | 6.510 (1.975–21.350) | 0.001 | 5.389 (1.298–21.975) | 0.021 | 0.823 (0.598–1.132) | 0.23 | ||
| CA19-9 prior to RT | 1.000 (1.000–1.000) | 0.521 | 1.000 (1.000–1.000) | 0.204 | ||||
| CA19-9 > 40% decrease prior to RT | ||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 1.105 (0.550–2.218) | 0.798 | 0.675 (0.481–0.947) | 0.023 | 0.703 (0.500–0.987) | 0.042 | ||
| Induction chemo regimen | ||||||||
| FOLFIRINOX | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Others | 2.104 (1.067–4.098) | 0.032 | 2.067 (1.038–4.052) | 0.047 | 1.136 (0.833–1.548) | 0.42 | ||
| Induction chemo duration | ||||||||
| >Median | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| ≤Median | 1.462 (0.735–2.901) | 0.289 | 0.787 (0.575–1.078) | 0.136 | ||||
| GTV D80% scaled (%), median | 0.971 (0.948–0.996) | 0.031 | 0.971 (0.902–1.038) | 0.376 | 1.003 (0.991–1.014) | 0.625 | ||
| GTV V120% (cc), median | 0.889 (0.815–0.978) | 0.019 | 0.992 (0.936–1.054) | 0.553 | 1.021 (1.009–1.034) | 0.001 | 1.021 (1.007–1.034) | 0.002 |
| GTV minimum dose | 0.997 (0.976–1.020) | 0.710 | 0.995 (0.983–1.006) | 0.366 | ||||
LF = local failure; OS = overall survival; GTV = gross tumor volume; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; SMART = stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy; HART = hypofractionated ablative radiation therapy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chuong, M.D.; O’Reilly, E.M.; Herrera, R.A.; Zinovoy, M.; Mittauer, K.E.; Rubens, M.; Kaiser, A.; Romesser, P.B.; Bassiri-Gharb, N.; Wu, A.J.; et al. Multi-Institutional Comparison of Ablative 5-Fraction Magnetic Resonance-Guided Online Adaptive Versus 15/25-Fraction Computed Tomography-Guided Moderately Hypofractionated Offline Adapted Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. Cancers 2025, 17, 2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17152596
AMA Style
Chuong MD, O’Reilly EM, Herrera RA, Zinovoy M, Mittauer KE, Rubens M, Kaiser A, Romesser PB, Bassiri-Gharb N, Wu AJ, et al. Multi-Institutional Comparison of Ablative 5-Fraction Magnetic Resonance-Guided Online Adaptive Versus 15/25-Fraction Computed Tomography-Guided Moderately Hypofractionated Offline Adapted Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. Cancers. 2025; 17(15):2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17152596
Chicago/Turabian StyleChuong, Michael D., Eileen M. O’Reilly, Robert A. Herrera, Melissa Zinovoy, Kathryn E. Mittauer, Muni Rubens, Adeel Kaiser, Paul B. Romesser, Nema Bassiri-Gharb, Abraham J. Wu, and et al. 2025. "Multi-Institutional Comparison of Ablative 5-Fraction Magnetic Resonance-Guided Online Adaptive Versus 15/25-Fraction Computed Tomography-Guided Moderately Hypofractionated Offline Adapted Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer" Cancers 17, no. 15: 2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17152596
APA StyleChuong, M. D., O’Reilly, E. M., Herrera, R. A., Zinovoy, M., Mittauer, K. E., Rubens, M., Kaiser, A., Romesser, P. B., Bassiri-Gharb, N., Wu, A. J., Cuaron, J. J., Gutierrez, A. N., Hajj, C., Ucar, A., DeZarraga, F., Aparo, S., Crane, C. H., & Reyngold, M. (2025). Multi-Institutional Comparison of Ablative 5-Fraction Magnetic Resonance-Guided Online Adaptive Versus 15/25-Fraction Computed Tomography-Guided Moderately Hypofractionated Offline Adapted Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. Cancers, 17(15), 2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17152596
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
