Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

In this paper, we review the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies, focusing on primary and metastatic liver cancer, and recurrent rectal cancer. Technological advancements in radiotherapy have facilitated the direct delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors, while limiting normal tissue exposure, supporting the use of hypofractionation. Hypofractionated radiotherapy is particularly effective for primary and metastatic liver cancer where high-dose irradiation is crucial to achieve effective local control. For recurrent rectal cancer, the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy offers a promising approach for re-irradiation, balancing efficacy and safety in patients who have been administered previous pelvic radiotherapy and in whom salvage surgery is not applicable. Nevertheless, the potential for radiation-induced liver disease and gastrointestinal complications presents challenges when applying hypofractionation to gastrointestinal organs. Given the lack of universal consensus on hypofractionation regimens and the dose constraints for primary and metastatic liver cancer, as well as for recurrent rectal cancer, this review aims to facilitate clinical decision-making by pointing to potential regimens and dose constraints, underpinned by a comprehensive review of existing clinical studies and guidelines.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) has become a trend in the modern era, as advances in RT techniques, including intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT, enable the precise and safe delivery of high-dose radiation. Hypofractionated RT offers convenience and can reduce the financial burden on patients by decreasing the number of fractions. Furthermore, hypofractionated RT is potentially more beneficial for tumors with a low α/β ratio compared with conventional fractionation RT. Therefore, hypofractionated RT has been investigated for various primary cancers and has gained status as a standard treatment recommended in the guidelines. In genitourinary (GU) cancer, especially prostate cancer, the efficacy, and safety of various hypofractionated dose schemes have been evaluated in numerous prospective clinical studies, establishing the standard hypofractionated RT regimen. Hypofractionated RT has also been explored for gynecological (GY) cancer, yielding relevant evidence in recent years. In this review, we aimed to summarize the representative evidence and current trends in clinical studies on hypofractionated RT for GU and GY cancers addressing several key questions. In addition, the objective is to offer suggestions for the available dose regimens for hypofractionated RT by reviewing protocols from previous clinical studies.

In this paper, we review the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies, focusing on primary and metastatic liver cancer, and recurrent rectal cancer. Technological advancements in radiotherapy have facilitated the direct delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors, while limiting normal tissue exposure, supporting the use of hypofractionation. Hypofractionated radiotherapy is particularly effective for primary and metastatic liver cancer where high-dose irradiation is crucial to achieve effective local control. For recurrent rectal cancer, the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy offers a promising approach for re-irradiation, balancing efficacy and safety in patients who have been administered previous pelvic radiotherapy and in whom salvage surgery is not applicable. Nevertheless, the potential for radiation-induced liver disease and gastrointestinal complications presents challenges when applying hypofractionation to gastrointestinal organs. Given the lack of universal consensus on hypofractionation regimens and the dose constraints for primary and metastatic liver cancer, as well as for recurrent rectal cancer, this review aims to facilitate clinical decision-making by pointing to potential regimens and dose constraints, underpinned by a comprehensive review of existing clinical studies and guidelines.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) has become a trend in the modern era, as advances in RT techniques, including intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT, enable the precise and safe delivery of high-dose radiation. Hypofractionated RT offers convenience and can reduce the financial burden on patients by decreasing the number of fractions. Furthermore, hypofractionated RT is potentially more beneficial for tumors with a low α/β ratio compared with conventional fractionation RT. Therefore, hypofractionated RT has been investigated for various primary cancers and has gained status as a standard treatment recommended in the guidelines. In genitourinary (GU) cancer, especially prostate cancer, the efficacy, and safety of various hypofractionated dose schemes have been evaluated in numerous prospective clinical studies, establishing the standard hypofractionated RT regimen. Hypofractionated RT has also been explored for gynecological (GY) cancer, yielding relevant evidence in recent years. In this review, we aimed to summarize the representative evidence and current trends in clinical studies on hypofractionated RT for GU and GY cancers addressing several key questions. In addition, the objective is to offer suggestions for the available dose regimens for hypofractionated RT by reviewing protocols from previous clinical studies.

In this paper, we review the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies, focusing on primary and metastatic liver cancer, and recurrent rectal cancer. Technological advancements in radiotherapy have facilitated the direct delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors, while limiting normal tissue exposure, supporting the use of hypofractionation. Hypofractionated radiotherapy is particularly effective for primary and metastatic liver cancer where high-dose irradiation is crucial to achieve effective local control. For recurrent rectal cancer, the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy offers a promising approach for re-irradiation, balancing efficacy and safety in patients who have been administered previous pelvic radiotherapy and in whom salvage surgery is not applicable. Nevertheless, the potential for radiation-induced liver disease and gastrointestinal complications presents challenges when applying hypofractionation to gastrointestinal organs. Given the lack of universal consensus on hypofractionation regimens and the dose constraints for primary and metastatic liver cancer, as well as for recurrent rectal cancer, this review aims to facilitate clinical decision-making by pointing to potential regimens and dose constraints, underpinned by a comprehensive review of existing clinical studies and guidelines.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) has become a trend in the modern era, as advances in RT techniques, including intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT, enable the precise and safe delivery of high-dose radiation. Hypofractionated RT offers convenience and can reduce the financial burden on patients by decreasing the number of fractions. Furthermore, hypofractionated RT is potentially more beneficial for tumors with a low α/β ratio compared with conventional fractionation RT. Therefore, hypofractionated RT has been investigated for various primary cancers and has gained status as a standard treatment recommended in the guidelines. In genitourinary (GU) cancer, especially prostate cancer, the efficacy, and safety of various hypofractionated dose schemes have been evaluated in numerous prospective clinical studies, establishing the standard hypofractionated RT regimen. Hypofractionated RT has also been explored for gynecological (GY) cancer, yielding relevant evidence in recent years. In this review, we aimed to summarize the representative evidence and current trends in clinical studies on hypofractionated RT for GU and GY cancers addressing several key questions. In addition, the objective is to offer suggestions for the available dose regimens for hypofractionated RT by reviewing protocols from previous clinical studies.

In this paper, we review the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy for gastrointestinal malignancies, focusing on primary and metastatic liver cancer, and recurrent rectal cancer. Technological advancements in radiotherapy have facilitated the direct delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors, while limiting normal tissue exposure, supporting the use of hypofractionation. Hypofractionated radiotherapy is particularly effective for primary and metastatic liver cancer where high-dose irradiation is crucial to achieve effective local control. For recurrent rectal cancer, the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy offers a promising approach for re-irradiation, balancing efficacy and safety in patients who have been administered previous pelvic radiotherapy and in whom salvage surgery is not applicable. Nevertheless, the potential for radiation-induced liver disease and gastrointestinal complications presents challenges when applying hypofractionation to gastrointestinal organs. Given the lack of universal consensus on hypofractionation regimens and the dose constraints for primary and metastatic liver cancer, as well as for recurrent rectal cancer, this review aims to facilitate clinical decision-making by pointing to potential regimens and dose constraints, underpinned by a comprehensive review of existing clinical studies and guidelines.