A Pilot Study of Individualized Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Phase: NA
Conditions: Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Sponsor: University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center

ID: UMCC 
2015.039 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Pilot Study of Individualized Adaptive Radiation 
Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma 
    NCT02460835 
 

 
 
UMCC 2015.039: A Pilot Study of Individualized Adaptive Radiation Therapy for 
Hepatocellular Carcinoma 
 
 
Principal Investigator: 
Theodore Lawrence, MD, PhD 
University of Michigan  
Department of Radiation Oncology 
1500 E. Medical Center Drive 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 
(Fax) 734-763-7371 
tsl@med.umich.edu 
 
Sub-Investigator(s): 
Yue Cao, PhD, Radiation Oncology 
 
 
Issam El Naqa, Radiation Oncology 
Martha Matuszak, PhD, Radiation Oncology 
 
Mishal Mendiratta-Lala, MD, Radiology  
 
Kyle Cuneo, M.D., Radiation Oncology  
 
Neehar Parikh, MD, Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology 
 
Randy Ten Haken, PhD, Radiation Oncology  
 
 
 
 
 
Biostatistician: 
Matt Schipper, PhD 
University of Michigan 
Department of Radiation Oncology 
(Phone) 734-232-1076 
Email mjschipp@med.umich.edu 
 
 
Version: 
April 30, 2020 

1 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................................................  3 
STUDY SCHEMA ............................................................................................................................  4 
STUDY SYNOPSIS .......................................................................................................................... 5 
1.0 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ........................................................................................... 6 
1.1 Disease Background ................................................................................................................. 7 
1.2 Study Agent(s) Background and Associated Known Toxicities .................................................. 9 
1.3 Rationale ....................................................................................................................................  9 
1.4 Quality of Life ............................................................................................................................. 9 
1.5 Correlative Studies .....................................................................................................................  10 
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 10 
2.1 Primary Objectives .................................................................................................................... 10 
2.2 Secondary Objectives ................................................................................................................  10 
2.3 Endpoints ...................................................................................................................................  10 
3.0 PATIENT ELIGIBILITY ..............................................................................................................  10 
3.1 Inclusion Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 10 
3.2 Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 11 
4.0 SUBJECT SCREENING AND REGISTRATION PROCEDURES ............................................  11 
5.0 TREATMENT PLAN ..................................................................................................................  11 
5.1 Treatment Dosage and Administration ....................................................................................... 11 
5.2 Toxicities and Dosing Delays/Dose Modifications .....................................................................  13 
5.3 Duration of Therapy ...................................................................................................................  13 
5.4 Off Treatment Criteria ................................................................................................................  13 
5.5 Duration of Follow-Up ................................................................................................................  13 
5.6 Off Study Criteria .......................................................................................................................  14 
5.7 Patient Replacement .................................................................................................................. 15 
6.0 STUDY PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................  15 
6.1 Screening/Baseline Procedures .............................................................................................. 
15 
6.2 Procedures During Treatment .................................................................................................. 16 
6.3 Follow-Up Procedures ...............................................................................................................  16 
6.4 Time and Events Table ..............................................................................................................  17 

2 
 
7.0 MEASUREMENT OF EFFECT ..................................................................................................  18 
7.1 Antitumor Effect- Solid Tumors .............................................................................................   
18 
7.2 Safety/Tolerability ..................................................................................................................  
19 
8.0 ADVERSE EVENTS................................................................................................................... 19 
8.1 Adverse Event Reporting Requirements .................................................................................. 19 
8.2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 19 
8.3 Adverse Event Characteristics ...................................................................................................  21 
8.4 Serious Adverse Event Reporting Guidelines ............................................................................  21 
8.5 Routine Reporting ......................................................................................................................  21 
8.6 Reporting of Unanticipated Problems ........................................................................................ 21 
8.7 Stopping Rules ..............................................................................................................……… 22 
9.0 DRUG INFORMATION ..............................................................................................................  22 
9.1 Indocyanine Green  .............................................................................................................. 
22 
9.2 Description  ………..................................................................................................................... 22 
9.3 Side Effects  ............................................................................................................................... 23 
9.4 Drug Interactions  ……………..................................................................................................... 23 
9.5 Preparation and Dispensing  ...................................................................................................... 23 
9.6 Administration   ………………….................................................................................................. 23 
10.0 CORRELATIVES/SPECIAL STUDIES .................................................................................... 23 
10.1 Sample Collection Guidelines ................................................................................................... 23 
10.2 Specimen Banking ................................................................................................................... 24 
10.3 Virtual radiotherapy planning .................................................................................................. 24 
11.0 STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................  24 
11.1 Study Design/Study Endpoints ................................................................................................. 24 
11.2 Sample Size and Accrual .......................................................................................................... 25 
11.3 Data Analyses Plans ................................................................................................................  26 
12.0 DATA AND SAFETY MONITORING .......................................................................................  26 
13.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND AUDITS ..................................................................................  27 
14.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................  28 
15.0 APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………………………………... 30 
 

3 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 
AE 
Adverse Event 
ALB 
ALT 
Albumin 
Alanine Aminotransferase 
AST 
Aspartate Aminotransferase 
BUN 
Blood Urea Nitrogen 
CBC 
Complete Blood Count 
CMP 
CP 
Comprehensive Metabolic Panel 
Child Pugh 
CR 
Complete Response 
CT 
Computed Tomography 
CTCAE 
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 
CTO 
Clinical Trials Office 
DLT 
Dose Limiting Toxicity 
DSMB 
Data and Safety Monitoring Board 
DSMC 
Data and Safety Monitoring Committee 
DSMR 
Data and Safety Monitoring Report 
GTV 
H&P 
Gross Tumor Volume 
History & Physical Exam 
HRPP 
Human Research Protections Program 
IRB 
Institutional Review Board 
IV (or iv) 
Intravenously 
MTD 
NTCP 
Maximum Tolerated Dose 
Normal Tissue Complication Probability 
OS 
Overall Survival 
PD 
Progressive Disease 
PFS 
Progression Free Survival 
PI 
Principal Investigator 
PR 
Partial Response 
PRC 
Protocol Review Committee 
PTV 
QOL 
RT 
SAE 
SBRT 
SD 
TBILI 
UaP 
Planning Target Volume 
Quality of Life 
Radiotherapy 
Serious Adverse Event 
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy 
Stable Disease 
Total Bilirubin 
Unanticipated Problem 
UMCCC 
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center 
WBC 
White Blood Cells 

4 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SCHEMA 
 
 
 
 
 

5 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SYNOPSIS 
 
Title 
A Pilot Study of Individualized Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Intrahepatic 
Cancer 
Methodology 
Single arm 
Study Duration 
2 years 
Study Center(s) 
Single-center 
Objectives 
Determine the safety and efficacy of individualized adaptive radiation 
therapy for intrahepatic cancer 
Number of Subjects 
80 evaluable patients 
Inclusion Criteria 
Patients who have hepatocellular carcinoma 
Exclusion Criteria 
Patients who have a known allergy to intravenous iodinated contrast 
agents or a contraindication to contrast-enhanced MRI 
Study Product(s), Dose, 
Route, Regimen 
Radiation dose and distribution within the liver adjusted based on function 
and tolerance of first phase of treatment. 3/5 of treatment delivered, 
followed by 1 month break, followed by the remaining 2/5 of treatment, 
with dose and spatial distribution adjusted based on biomarker and 
imaging tumor and normal tissue response. 
Duration of Administration 
3-5 treatments, depending on ICG, CP score, ALBI score and NTCP model 
Statistical Methodology 
This pilot study will establish the feasibility of this individualized adaptive 
radiation therapy. It will also provide preliminary estimates of the safety 
and efficacy of this treatment that will be used to plan a subsequent 
randomized controlled trial. 

6 
 
 
1.0 
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 
 
1.1 
Disease Background 
1.1.1 Epidemiology and scope 
Worldwide, primary liver cancer is a major health problem with more than 500,000 
new cases diagnosed yearly. It is the fifth most common neoplasm, and the third most 
common cause of cancer-related death.1 In some areas of Asia, HCC is the most 
common cause of death due to cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that 
33,190 people will be diagnosed with HCC or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the 
US in 20142. The incidence has been increasing in Europe3 3and in the US
2,4and it is 
estimated that its incidence in the US will equal that currently reported in Japan within 
two decades.
5 Primary liver cancer is one of 4 cancer sites that has increased death 
rates between 1990 and 2004, and is the only cancer that has shown more than 10% 
increase (41% and 28% rate increases for males and females, respectively). 2 This 
disease is clearly a growing problem. 
 
1.1.2 Current Therapies for unresectable intrahepatic cancer 
 
Complete resection is the most effective therapy for HCC. Unfortunately, curative 
surgery cannot be offered to most patients. Many patients are inoperable due to co-
morbidity, and others present with disease extent that requires resections that would 
not leave sufficient residual functional liver parenchyma. For instance, Abdalla et al. 
reported the M.D. Anderson experience with hepatic resection. 6 Of 418 patients who 
were deemed resectable and were explored, only 190 patients (45%) underwent 
complete resection. Three major therapies have been used for these unresectable 
patients. 
 
1.1.2.1 Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) 
In a prospective trial by Lencioni and colleagues7, 10% of 206 patients 
initially evaluated for RFA had contraindications based on tumor location. 
After these patients were excluded, 20% had an inadequate response to RFA 
(viable tumor remaining after 1 month). Of the patients who had an inadequate 
response to RFA, only approximately half of the patients were controlled by a 
second RFA. Finally, 10% of patients who were thought to be controlled 
recurred locally within 3 years. In a systematic review of the use of RFA for HCC, 
local failures over a 3 year period tend to average from 10 - 29%, and failure 
elsewhere in the liver approximately 50%.8 In the case of metastases from 
colorectal cancer, recurrences after RFA range from 2-39%, with other liver 
failures from 14-58%.8 In all series, local failure increases with tumor size > 3-
4 cm. Our experience at the University of Michigan suggests a similar or 
somewhat higher local failure rate.
9 In this proposal, we anticipate focusing 
on patients who have recurred after RFA or have tumors that are not 
amenable to RFA, such as tumors greater than 3.5 cm in size, as well as 
those abutting vasculature, lung, or bile duct. 
 
1.1.2.2 Transcatheter Arterial ChemoEmbolization (TACE) 
Although some trials and an initial randomized trial showed no difference 
between chemoembolization and best supportive care1011more recent studies 
have begun to suggest that chemoembolization can improve survival of a subset 
of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.12,13A systematic review of all modern 
randomized trials 
suggests that TACE modestly prolongs survival (from 
approximately 16 months to 20 months), compared to best supportive case, for 
patients with tumors < 6 cm who have excellent performance status and do 
not have portal vein thrombosis14,15.However, TACE is not a curative therapy 
and tumors typically recur even after multiple TACE administrations, 

7 
 
suggesting that additional therapies are required. 
 
1.1.2.3 Radiation Therapy 
In our previous series of prospective clinical trials,16,17 we found improved 
survival with higher radiotherapy dose. Further, dose delivered was the most 
important predictive factor for survival. Indeed, approximately 20% of patients 
receiving >75 Gy using 1.5 Gy BID are alive 4 years after treatment; historically 
that number would be very close to 0%. These data are proof of principle that 
focused radiation can control intrahepatic cancer, and that we are experienced 
in these techniques.
18 Since the mid 2000s,stereotactic body radiotherapy 
(SBRT) has gained in popularity, due to the improvement in convenience, with 
5, rather than 30 or more treatments. We have recently published our results, 
which are in line with other experiences. In the immediately preceding study, we 
used stereotactic body radiotherapy to successfully and safely treat liver tumors, 
with 97% 1 year local control and no significant liver toxicity.
19 High efficacy 
and safety were obtained by individualizing treatment based on not only pre-
treatment liver function, but also each patient’s tolerance to radiation. In this new 
protocol, we intend to test our ability to further individualize and adapt 
treatment based on the geometric distribution of functional liver parenchyma 
for patients with larger tumors and poor liver function. 
 
1.1.3 Avoidance of Radiation Induced Liver Decompensation (Change in CP and ALBI 
score) 
 
Classically, radiation liver damage was measured with the endpoint of radiation induced 
liver disease (RILD) based on prior work on whole liver radiation20,21. However, in the 
modern era with daily imaging and highly conformal radiotherapy, RILD is very rare22. 
Currently, radiation liver toxicity is more aptly defined by functional liver decompensation 
in terms of the development of portal hypertension, new onset ascites, and encephalopathy 
as well as objective lab values. Many groups have published on a change in Child-Pugh 
score of greater than or equal to 2 and change in the albumin and bilirubin (ALBI score) as 
more meaningful endpoints23-26. One of the key hypotheses of this trial is that by avoiding 
functional liver and adapting dose based on liver function, we will minimize these toxic 
effects. The patients who are at highest risk of decompensation are patients who have poor 
liver function at baseline. Most patients with HCC present with concurrent cirrhosis which 
puts them at higher risk of decompensation post radiation. Using spatial functional 
information as well as direct global measures of liver function e.g. ICG, baseline CP score 
and ALBI, we hope to deliver a tumoricidal dose without causing toxicity. 
 
 
1.1.4 Adjusting global RT dose based on liver function as assessed through 
clearance of Indocyanine Green. Although we developed the most accurate 
population-based model for predicting RILD for patients receiving fractionated 
radiation therapy, we are aware that there are limitations when applying this 
to individual patients, with variable sensitivity to radiation. Relying solely on the 
model unnecessarily exposes patients with high sensitivity to radiation to a 
high risk of toxicity, while at the same time, it also denies patients with 
average and low sensitivity to higher doses of radiotherapy, which could 
increase tumor control. In the preceding clinical trial, we individualized therapy 
based on the sensitivity of individual patient. Initial liver function was 
characterized by measuring the clearance of indocyanine green, a dye taken 
up by the plasma almost exclusively by the hepatic parenchymal cells and 
secreted entirely into the bile without undergoing any significant extrahepatic 
or enterohepatic circulation. It has been used extensively to predict mortality 
after liver resection and severe trauma27 28.We delivered 3 treatments of SBRT, 
waited 4 weeks to detect subclinical decline in liver function, and adjusted 
radiation dose for 2 remaining treatments, based on the stability or decline in 

8 
 
function19. Insertion of a treatment break did not compromise tumor control. 
Indeed, 1 year local control for the first 76 patients was 97%, comparable 
to any other prospective or retrospective report. Patients with very poor liver 
function (Child Pugh B and even C) were treated safely on trial, suggesting that 
modifying radiation dose part-way through treatment successfully avoided 
what would have been severe toxicity. Our initial analysis of the first 20 patients 
evaluable on the study showed that we need to begin adapting treatment prior 
to the first 3/5 of radiation delivery. We plan to accrue an additional 40 patients 
to examine the feasibility of up front individualization in addition to mid treatment 
adaptation to minimize toxicity and maintain excellent local control. We have 
demonstrated that patients with good liver function and small tumors (<3.5 cm) 
have excellent local control and very low rates of toxicity. The current protocol 
looks at adapting therapy for patients with good liver function (CPA to B7) but 
larger tumors where more liver parenchyma would receive radiation thereby 
increasing the risk of toxicity and those with poor liver function (CPB8 and above) 
who at baseline are at increased risk of liver decompensation post treatment. 
Our interim analysis has revealed that a combination of albumin and bilirubin, 
called ALBI, which is an accurate predictor of survival for patients with HCC with 
liver dysfunction36, is as or more useful than ICG in estimating liver function and 
predicting future toxicity.  Thus, either ICG or ALBI can be used in this trial. 

9 
 
 
 
 
1.1.4.1 Adjusting spatial RT distribution based on regional liver function as 
assessed by perfusion MRI. This protocol builds on over 25 years of experience with 
high dose liver RT, and in particular adaptive RT aimed at adjusting the global radiation 
dose based on a patient’s measured sensitivity to treatment. The next leap forward 
is to use functional imaging to spare highly functional portions of the liver. We have 
previously demonstrated that dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE or perfusion) MRI 
correlates with global liver function as measured by ICG, and that regionally, function 
declines as a function of delivered radiation dose.29 This and, potentially, other 
advanced MRI techniques, provides the opportunity to sculpt dose away from high-
functioning parts of the liver to improve the safety of treatment. 
 
1.2 
Study Agent(s) Background and Associated Known Toxicities 
We have over 25 years of experience with liver radiotherapy. As discussed above, change in 
Child Pugh status and ALBI are the primary toxicity endpoints.  Additionally, depending on 
the tumor location and proximity to normal structures including stomach, small bowel, colon, 
and right kidney, there is a small risk of GI bleed or renal damage. These are quite rare in 
our experience, minimize with careful treatment planning and delivery. Indocyanine green is 
FDA approved and has been in use for 50 years to estimate liver function. In patients 
without an iodine allergy, it is quite safe. Patients with iodine allergies will be excluded from 
participation in this study. 
 
1.3 
Rationale 
This is a pilot single arm study with a goal of obtaining preliminary estimates of safety and 
efficacy. This protocol builds on over 25 years of experience with high dose liver RT, and in 
particular adaptive RT aimed at adjusting the global radiation dose based on a patient’s 
measured sensitivity to treatment. Using functional imaging to spare highly functional 
portions of the liver is a novel concept, and as far as we know, we are the only ones currently 
in a position to put this into practice. We feel this will further improve the safety and efficacy 
of RT for all patients by customizing treatments to each. If this approach is promising, we will 
proceed to a phase II randomized study of standard versus spatially and dosimetrically 
adapted RT. 
 
 
1.4 
Quality of life 
The quality of life of patients with liver tumors is not well-studied. For these patients, 
many of whom already suffer from chronic medical problems including cirrhosis, it is 
particularly important to understand how tumor-directed treatments impact quality of life. 
The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) version 4 

10 
 
questionnaire will be used in this study to measure QOL. This is a 45-item validated 
instrument used in other clinical trials of treatment for liver cancer, including the RTOG 
1112 international randomized trial of sorafenib +/- SBRT. 
 
1.5 
Correlative Studies 
 
1.5.1 
Assessment of plasma and serum biomarkers: Classic RILD is caused by veno-
occlusive disease, which is likely related to endothelial cell apoptosis as an 
initiating lesion. Radiation also induces various proinflammatory cytokines, 
including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and transforming growth factor-
beta 1,30 and hepatic microvascular pathogenesis that lead to apoptosis in the 
liver.31 Elevation of TGF-beta has been associated with RILD in women 
undergoing bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer32.   In addition, an 
increased TNF-alpha production has been associated with the progression of 
hepatic veno-occlusive diseases in stem cell transplant patients33, suggesting the 
potential role of cytokines in radiation-induced liver apoptosis. Our preclinical 
studies demonstrate the TNF alpha may play a key role in radiation injury of the 
liver.33   We have experience measuring cytokines in patient plasma.
34 We propose 
to measure these cytokines and other potential circulating biomarkers in plasma 
and serum, and retrospectively assess their potential contribution to individualize 
our assessment of liver injury that could be used to adjust liver dose. 
 
2.0 
STUDY OBJECTIVES 
 
2.1 
Primary Objectives 
1) Establish the feasibility of the proposed adaptive treatment strategy 
2) Obtain preliminary estimates of the safety and efficacy of individualized adaptive RT. 
 
2.2 
Secondary Objectives 
1) To collect data on biomarkers of treatment efficacy, toxicity, and liver function to plan 
further enhancements to individualized RT. 
2) To determine the change in quality of life during and after RT. 
 
2.3 
Endpoints 
2.3.1 Primary endpoints: 
2.3.1.1 Feasibility: Successful completion of treatment including use of perfusion 
MR in plan optimization. 
2.3.1.2 Safety: Rate of liver decompensation (change in Child-Pugh score >2 
and ALBI score > 0.5) and grade 3 GI bleeding. The former are lab 
values that are already collected as standard of care. The latter will be 
assessed via the NCI CTCAE version 4.0. 
2.3.1.3 
Efficacy: Lesion-specific local control 
2.3.2 Secondary endpoints: Time to any progression and overall survival 
 
 
 
 
 
3.0 PATIENT ELIGIBILITY 
 
Subjects must meet all of the inclusion and exclusion criteria to be enrolled to the study. Study 
treatment may not begin until a subject is enrolled. 
 
3.1 
Inclusion Criteria 
3.1.1 Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are eligible for this trial. Hepatocellular 
carcinoma is defined as having at least one of the following: 

11 
 
a. Biopsy proven hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); or 
b. A discrete hepatic tumor(s) as defined by the Barcelona
35 criteria – for cirrhotic 
patients, >1cm with arterial hypervascularity and venous or delayed phase washout 
on CT or MRI [RECIST or mRECIST measurements will be captured for the study 
database and response assessment, however documentation of RECIST or 
mRECIST is not required at the time of enrollment.] 
3.1.2 Patients must not have extrahepatic cancer. 
3.1.3 Patients must not be eligible for curative liver resection or has refused resection. 
3.1.4 Patients must have recovered from the acute effects of prior liver-directed therapy 
(e.g. RT, RFA, or TACE), and a minimum of 4 weeks must have passed since the 
last procedure and protocol therapy. 
 
3.1.5 Patients must have a Zubrod performance status of ≤2. 
3.1.6 Patients must have a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. 
3.1.7 Patients must be 18 years of age or older. 
3.1.8 Patients must have adequate organ function as defined below. 
• 
Bone marrow:   Platelets ≥30,000/mm3 
• 
Renal:  BUN ≤40 mg/dl; creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dl 
• 
CPB score 8 and above for any size tumor 
• 
CPA-B7 score with tumors >3.5 cm 
3.1.9 Patients must understand and be willing to sign an informed consent form approved 
for this purpose by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Michigan 
Medical Center indicating that they are aware of the investigational aspects of the 
treatment and the potential risks. 
 
3.2 
Exclusion Criteria 
3.2.1 
Patients with known allergy to intravenous iodinated contrast agents 
3.2.2 
Patients with a contraindication to contrast-enhanced MRI 
 
 
4.0 
SUBJECT SCREENING AND REGISTRATION PROCEDURES 
After informed consent is obtained and PRIOR to the initiation of protocol therapy all patients 
satisfying the inclusion/exclusion criteria will have eligibility confirmed by the Clinical Trials Office. 
The patient will not be considered registered and enrolled in the study until all information is 
confirmed by the Clinical Trials Office Data Manager. 
 
 
5.0 
TREATMENT PLAN 
5.1 
Treatment Dosage and Administration 
Protocol treatment must start within 30 business days of enrollment to the study. 
5.1.1 
Global and regional assessment of liver function 
5.1.1.1 Global functional assessment with indocyanine green (ICG) 
clearance Preparation and administration of indocyanine green will be as 
per package insert by trained personnel in the Michigan Clinical Research 
Unit (MCRU). In some patients, indocyanine green will not be used, in favor 
of ALBI score. 

13 
 
 
5.1.1.1.1 Evaluations with ICG or ALBI will occur within 4 weeks prior to the 
start of RT, at approximately 4-6 weeks after the completion of the first 3/5 of 
planned treatments, and approximately 1-3 months after RT is completed. 
5.1.1.1.2 For patients scheduled to have ICG testing for other reasons 
(including prior or subsequent enrollment in this or other protocols), every 
effort will be made to use results for both purposes, to avoid duplication, 
including extending windows by an extra 4 weeks in each direction. 
5.1.1.2 Baseline bloodwork and physical exam to obtain ALBI and Child Pugh 
score 
5.1.1.3 Regional functional assessment with perfusion MRI 
MRIs will be obtained by trained personnel in the Department of Radiation Oncology 
at the University of Michigan. 
5.1.1.3.1 Evaluations will occur within 4 weeks prior to the start of RT, at 
approximately 4-6 weeks after the completion of the first 3/5 of planned 
treatments, and approximately 1-3 months after RT is completed. 
5.1.1.3.2 For patients scheduled to have perfusion MRI for other reasons 
(including prior or subsequent enrollment in this or other protocols), every 
effort will be made to use results for both purposes, to avoid duplication, 
including extending windows by an extra 4 weeks in each direction. 
5.1.1.4 Functional assessment with MRI 
MRIs will be obtained by trained personnel in the Department of Radiation Oncology 
at the University of Michigan. 
5.1.1.4.1 Evaluations will occur within 4 weeks prior to the start of RT, at 
approximately 3-6 weeks after the completion of the first 3/5 of planned 
treatments, and approximately 1-3 months after RT is completed. 
5.1.1.4.2 For patients scheduled to have MRI for other reasons (including 
prior or subsequent enrollment in this or other protocols), every effort will 
be made to use results for both purposes, to avoid duplication, including 
extending windows by an extra 4 weeks in each direction. 
 
5.1.2 Initial radiotherapy plan 
5.1.2.1 CT with or without MRI simulation will be performed in treatment 
planning position, with appropriate immobilization, as is standard of care. 
 
5.1.2.2 Radiation target volumes. The gross tumor volume (GTV) will be defined on 
CT or MRI. Appropriate patient-specific margins for motion will be added for patients 
unable to tolerate breath hold for treatment. No margin will be added for microscopic 
extent, as per routine clinical practice. A PTV margin will be added as per standard 
practice, typically 5mm radially and 8mm superiorly and inferiorly. 
 
5.1.2.3 PTV Target Doses. Doses will be prescribed to a peripheral covering isodose 
covering the PTV, except in cases where this would exceed recommended doses to 
organs at risk (OARs). In these cases, heterogeneous dose distributions sparing 
these OARs are expected. The dose per fraction will be determined by the risk of 
liver damage, which will be fixed at ≤10% for the initial 3/5 of treatment. The full 
treatment plan will be devised at this time in order to account for total normal tissue 
dose if patients are able to proceed with the entire treatment. The remaining 2/5 of 
treatment will be determined as per section 11 and potentially reduced based on liver 
function. Maximum prescribed tumor dose will be 55 Gy in 5 fractions, which we 
have shown that this dose is adequate for 95% local control at 2 years even for large 
tumors. 
 
 
5.1.2.4 OAR Limits. Standard OAR limits in routine clinical practice will be 
applied and will take priority over target coverage. 
 

14 
 
5.1.3 Radiation Schedule. The first 3/5 of the treatment plan will be delivered in the initial 
phase. The dose of radiation will be based on baseline ICG or ALBI, CP score, and functional 
liver imaging for an NTCP < 10% for a predicted CP score change of greater than or equal to 
2. After an approximately 4 week break and re-assessment of liver function with ICG testing 
or ALBI, the final 2/5 of treatment may be delivered, as per section 11. Patients who have, or 
would be predicted to have, unacceptable Toxicity (as defined in section 8.6) at the 
reassessment point will receive no additional therapy at that time. 
 
5.1.4 Adaptive radiotherapy plan for the final 2/5 of treatment. Each patient will be treated in 
two parts. In the first part, the dose will be determined using the current normal tissue 
complication probability (NTCP) model and spatial liver function considered in treatment 
planning. The patient's baseline and 2nd global and spatial liver function assessments will be 
used to individualize the second part of treatment. Based on the MRI, adjustments in the 
dose distribution will be made to maximize remaining liver function and target active tumor 
subvolumes. Accumulated data from the trial will be used to update the individualization 
model. 
 
5.2 
Toxicities and Dosing Delays/Dose Modifications 
Patients who receive radiation treatment on this protocol will be evaluable for toxicity. 
Toxicity will be assessed according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse 
Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. If these toxicities occur during treatment, then RT will be held 
until resolution: Grade ≥3 ascites, change in ALBI score by 0.5, Child Pugh score greater 
than or equal to 2. 
 
5.3 
Duration of Therapy 
Therapy would typically continue until delivery of the intended number of fractions. If liver 
function declines after the first 3/5 of treatments and does not recover sufficiently for 
additional therapy, then treatment will also be considered complete after 3 fractions (see 
above for definition). 
Treatment will also be complete if a patient voluntarily withdraws from treatment or changes 
in the patient’s condition render the patient unacceptable for further treatment in the 
judgment of the investigator. 
 
5.4 
Off Treatment Criteria 
Patients will be removed from protocol therapy when any of the criteria listed in Section 
5.3 apply, with documentation provided. All patients who discontinue treatment should comply 
with protocol specific follow-up procedures as outlined in Section 6.3. The only exception to 
this requirement is when a subject withdraws consent for all study procedures, loses the 
ability to consent freely, or is removed from follow up per the investigator’s discretion, as in 
Section 5.6. 
 
5.5 
Duration of Follow-Up 
Patients will be followed for 2 years after completion of treatment or until death, whichever 
occurs first. If patients progress outside of the treated tumor, they will only be followed for 
survival, without mandated visits with study personnel, as long as they are being seen 
routinely every 3-6 months by an oncologist or hepatologist. These clinic notes can be 
requested for study purposes, and tumor measurements tracked from clinical scans. 
 
 
 
5.6 
Off Study Criteria 
Patients can be taken off study at any time at their own request, or they may be withdrawn 
at the discretion of the investigator for safety, behavioral or administrative reasons. Patients 
will be considered off study after completion of protocol treatment and follow-up criteria. 
The reason(s) for discontinuation from study will be documented and may include: 
5.6.1 
For patients planning to receive ICG testing in lieu of ALBI, patients will be removed if 

15 
 
they are unable to complete the pre-treatment and post- 3 fraction IC Green tests, as 
these are necessary for dose adjustment. 
5.6.2 
Patients will be removed if they are unable to receive RT treatments. 
5.6.3 
Patients may be removed from study at any time by patient request. 
 
5.6.4 
Patients who enroll in subsequent liver radiation therapeutic trials are considered off 
study for initial enrollment. Local control for all treated lesions will be tracked on the 
follow up schedule for the subsequent enrollment to avoid duplicate procedures. 
5.6.5 
Patients who have progression of the treated lesion will be followed for survival 
and toxicity only. 
5.6.6 
Patients who go on to receive additional liver-directed to the treated lesion or 
systemic therapy (non-radiation therapy, on or off protocol) will be followed for 
survival only. 
5.6.7 
Patients can be removed from study if they are unable to comply with protocol 
requirements. 
5.6.8 
Patients can be removed from study if the treating physician judges that 
continuation on the study would not be in their best interest. 
 
5.7 
Patient Replacement 
Patients who do not complete the pre-treatment and post 3/5 of treatment IC Green tests 
or bloodwork to evaluate ALBI score, along with the initial 3/5 of treatment are considered 
non-evaluable and will be replaced until a total of 80 evaluable patients is reached (80 
patients). 
 
 
6.0 
STUDY PROCEDURES 
 
6.1 
Screening/Baseline Procedures 
Assessments performed exclusively to determine eligibility for this study will be done only 
after obtaining informed consent. Assessments performed for clinical indications (not 
exclusively to determine study eligibility) may be used for baseline values even if the 
studies were done before informed consent was obtained. 
 
All screening procedures must be performed within 30 days prior to registration unless 
otherwise stated. Baseline procedures to be completed prior to radiotherapy. The 
screening procedures include: 
6.1.1 Informed Consent 
6.1.2 Medical history 
6.1.3 Review subject eligibility criteria 
6.1.4 Physical exam: To include ascites and encephalopathy 
6.1.5 Performance status 
6.1.6 Baseline adverse event assessment 
6.1.7 Hematology: CBC 
6.1.8 Serum chemistries: Comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) to include: albumin, 
alkaline phosphatase, ALT, AST, BUN, creatinine, electrolytes (sodium, 
potassium), glucose, and total bilirubin. 
6.1.9 Coagulation assessment: PT/INR 
6.1.10 Tumor assessment: The longest dimension of each tumor to be treated will be 
measured and recorded either on the most recent diagnostic scan or simulation 
scan. 
6.1.11 Indocyanine green or ALBI baseline testing: ICG retention or ALBI will be 
measured by blood test after study enrollment and prior to radiotherapy. 
6.1.12 Blood draw for correlative studies after study enrollment and prior to radiotherapy. 
See Section 10.0 for details. 
6.1.13 For patients who consent to this portion of the study, tumor biopsy will also be 
performed (see section 10.1.2) after study enrollment and prior to radiotherapy. 

16 
 
 
Generally, this would be performed at the time of clinically necessary fiducial 
placement for radiation targeting. 
6.1.14 Quality of life assessment after study enrollment and prior to radiotherapy: 
FACT-HEP (Version 4). 
 
6.2 
Procedures During Treatment: See section 5 
 
6.3 
Follow-Up Procedures 
Patients will be evaluated approximately 1 month after completion of therapy and then at 
approximately 3-6 month intervals until 2 years. Evaluation will include H&P, laboratories 
(CBC, comprehensive metabolic panel, INR, AFP if elevated at diagnosis), and liver 
imaging (beginning 3 months after treatment). QOL assessments will be obtained at the 
same intervals for 1 year. ICG or ALBI will be assessed approximately 1 and 3 months 
after completion of therapy. Blood and urine (when patient is able to provide) will be 
collected at approximately 1 and 3 months after completion of therapy.  MRI will be 
assessed approximately 1 month after completion of therapy.  This follow up schedule will 
adhere to standard of care clinical follow up. Therefore, missed visits and visits that 
diverge from this regimen will not be considered protocol deviations. MRI and ICG must 
be performed at the University of Michigan. However, if patients are not able to travel for 
all other follow up evaluations and procedures, they may have these performed by a local 
physician and records obtained by the study team. If patients are concurrently or 
previously enrolled in another research study which requires similar testing, all efforts will 
be made to avoid unnecessary repeat testing. 
 
 
 

17 
 
 
6.4 
Time and Events Table 
 
Active Treatment 
Pre-Rx 
Eval1 
Initial RT 
Phase 
Evaluation Period 
Approximately 4-6 Weeks 
after Initial RT Phase 
Final RT 
phase5 
History, Physical Exam, 
Performance Status, QOL8 
X 
PS  
QOL 
PS  
Weight 
X 
Once 
X 
Once 
CBC/Platelets 
X 
X 
AST, ALT, Alk Phos, 
Bilirubin 
X 
X 
BUN/Creatinine 
X 
X 
INR 
X 
X 
AFP (for HCC) 
X 
X 
Toxicity Notation 
X 
Once 
Once 
MELD/CTP assessment 
X 
X 
IC-Green 6 
X 
X4 
Simulation 
X 
X 
Perfusion MRI9 
X 
X 
Tumor biopsy7 
X 
Diagnostic CT or MRI of 
liver 
X2 
Chest imaging with x-ray or 
CT 
X3 
Plasma and serum 
X 
X 
Radiation Treatment (RT) 
X 
X 
1  From 30 days prior to signed ICF, through treatment start. 
2 From 90 days prior to signed ICF, through treatment start.   
3 Within 1 year prior to enrollment 
4 If a patient does not initially qualify for the final RT phase, he/she will undergo repeat IC- 
Green in approximately 4 weeks as a second attempt. 
5 Patients who do not qualify for the final RT phase will not undergo any of the treatment or 
testing associated with that phase. The final day of the initial RT phase will be counted as 
the last day of treatment, and the follow up calendar will be initiated. 
6 For patients indicated to receive IC-Green from the treating physician.  If the patient was 
previously enrolled on any trial utilizing IC-Green (including this one), then an evaluation of 
IC-Green retention performed for the other trial may be used as the pre- treatment 
assessment for this enrollment, as long as it is within 30 days prior to initiation of this new 
course of RT. 
7 Biopsy only performed if patient consents 
8 QOL will consist of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT- 
HEP) version 4.  As patients can be seen in a variety of clinics, and occasionally do not 
follow a standard clinic schedule, missed QOLs will not be reported as a protocol deviation. 
9 Description of Perfusion MRI protocol in the appendix. 
 
 
 
 
 

18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.0 
MEASUREMENT OF EFFECT 
 
7.1 
Antitumor Effect- Solid Tumors 
 
Response and progression will be evaluated in this study using criteria similar to the 
international criteria set by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 
Committee [JNCI 92(3):205-216, 2000]. However, rather than tracking the sum of longest 
diameters, each treated tumor will be assessed individually and the longest diameter 
tracked in these lesion-specific tumor measurements. Additionally, at least 4mm change 
is required for a lesion to be deemed to have progressed or responded. mRECIST will 
also be tracked where possible.30 
 
7.1.1 Definitions 
Evaluable for toxicity. All patients will be evaluable for toxicity from the time of 
their first radiation treatment. 
 
Evaluable for objective response. Only those patients who have measurable 
disease present at baseline, have completed at least the first portion of 
treatment, and have had their disease re-evaluated will be considered evaluable 
for response. These patients will have their response classified according to the 
definitions stated below. 
 
7.1.2 Disease Parameters 
All tumor measurements must be recorded in millimeters. The same method 
assessment and the same technique should be used to characterize each identified 
and reported lesion at baseline and during follow-up if at all possible. 
 
Target lesions. All tumors treated with radiotherapy are considered target lesions 
and measured and recorded separately at baseline and during follow up scans. 
 
Non-target lesions. All other tumors are considered non-target lesions and will not be 
tracked except when noted as new or progressive (either within the liver or outside of 
the liver) on followup scans. Measurements are not required. 
 
7.1.3 Response Criteria 
 
7.1.3.1 Evaluation of Target Lesions 
Complete Response (CR): Disappearance of target lesion. 
 
Partial Response (PR): At least a 30% decrease in the longest diameter (LD) 
of target lesion, and at least 4mm decrease, taking as reference the baseline 
LD. 
 
Progressive Disease (PD): At least a 20% increase in the LD of target lesion, 
and at least 4mm increase, taking as reference the smallest LD recorded 
since the treatment started. 
 
Stable Disease (SD): Neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor 
sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest LD 
since the treatment started. 
Note: If subjects respond to treatment and are able to have their disease resected, 

19 
 
the patient’s response will be assessed prior to the surgery. 
 
7.1.3.2 Evaluation of Remote Intrahepatic Lesions: The presence of new or 
growing tumors remote from previously treated tumor sites will be interpreted 
based on the standard criteria for the diagnosis of metastatic disease or 
HCC and recorded. The presence or absence of these will be tracked 
separately from the target lesions. 
7.1.3.3 Evaluation of Extrahepatic Lesions: Imaging will be evaluated for the 
appearance of new or growing extrahepatic tumor deposits. These will be 
tracked separately from the target lesions and remote intrahepatic lesions. 
7.1.4 Local Control:  Local control is defined as the lack of progression of the tumors 
treated by RT, either by tumor size or enhancement. Progression or development of 
new tumors elsewhere in the liver or outside of the liver would not constitute a local 
control failure. 
7.1.5 Progression-Free Survival: Progression-free survival (PFS) is defined as the 
duration of time from start of treatment to time of progression. 
7.1.7   Overall Survival: Overall survival (OS) is defined as the duration of time from start of 
treatment to death. 
 
7.2 
Safety/Tolerability 
Analyses will be performed for all patients having received at least the first part of 
treatment with radiation. The study will use the CTCAE version 4.0 for reporting of non- 
hematologic adverse events (http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/ctc.html). 
 
8.0 
ADVERSE EVENTS 
 
8.1 
Adverse Event Reporting Requirements 
Data on adverse events will be collected from the time of the first radiation treatment 
through 2 years after completion of radiation. Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) will 
continue to be followed until: 
• 
Resolution or the symptoms or signs that constitute the serious adverse event 
return to baseline; 
• 
There is satisfactory explanation other than the study treatment for the changes 
observed; or 
• 
Death. 
 
The definitions of AEs and SAEs are given below. 
 
Any medical condition or laboratory abnormality with an onset date before initial study 
treatment is considered to be pre-existing in nature. Any known pre-existing conditions 
that are ongoing at time of study entry should be considered medical history rather than 
an AE. 
 
In addition to new events, any increase in the frequency or severity (i.e., toxicity grade) of 
a pre-existing condition that occurs after the patient begins treatment is also considered 
an adverse event if it meets the definitions below. 
 
8.2 
Definitions 
 
8.2.1 Adverse Event 
An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient receiving 
study treatment and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with 
this treatment. An AE can be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an 
abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the 
use of an experimental intervention, whether or not related to the intervention. 
• 
All grade 3 and above AEs will be collected, in addition to any grade ≥2 
gastritis, hepatic pain, vomiting, and fatigue. The NCI CTCAE v 4.0 will be 

20 
 
utilized to grade AEs and for AE reporting. 
• 
Diagnostic and therapeutic non-invasive and invasive (i.e., surgical) 
procedures will not be reported as adverse events. However, the medical 
condition for which the procedure was performed must be reported if it meets 
the definition of an adverse event unless it is a pre-existing (prior to protocol 
treatment) condition or a condition entirely unrelated to the study 
radiotherapy (e.g. cardiac, lung, or bladder procedure). 
• 
Abnormal laboratory values or test results constitute adverse events only if 
they induce clinical signs or symptoms or require therapy. They are to be 
captured under the signs, symptoms or diagnoses associated with them. 
• 
When an event recurs after it is resolved, it should be handled as a new AE. 
However, AEs that occur intermittently can be recorded as one AE. 
 
8.2.2 Serious Adverse Event 
An adverse event is considered “serious” if, in the view of either the investigator, it 
results in any of the following outcomes: 
 
o 
Death 
If death results from (progression of) the disease (cirrhosis or cancer), it is not 
considered an SAE. 
o 
A life-threatening adverse event 
An adverse event is considered ‘life-threatening’ if, in the view of the investigator, 
its occurrence places the patient or subject at immediate risk of death. 
o 
Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization for > 24 
hours unless it was related to the disease under study, pre-existing conditions, 
or an accident, rather than the radiation treatments themselves. 
o 
A congenital anomaly/birth defect 
 
Previously planned (prior to signing the informed consent form) surgeries, 
hospitalizations, or procedures should not be reported as SAEs unless the underlying 
medical condition has substantially worsened during the course of the study, unless 
the investigator deems it definitely unrelated to treatment. 
Hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization without a precipitating clinical AE 
should not be considered SAEs. 
 
Other adverse events that will be excluded from SAE reporting: 
-Death due to cancer or cirrhosis 
-Hospitalization secondary to expected cancer or cirrhosis morbidity 
-Admission for palliative care or pain management 
-Admission for management of biliary obstruction or cholangitis 
-Admission for management of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary 
embolism 
-Planned hospitalizations for surgical procedures 
-Accidental injury 
Event reporting for oncology protocols, particularly those involving patients with liver 
disease, can be complicated and confusing to investigators, data managers, and 
regulatory oversight bodies because patients typically develop numerous 
complications such ascites, encephalopathy, peritonitis, GI bleed, blood clot, etc as 
part of the typical course of cirrhosis and not related to the study therapy. 
Therefore, a well-conceived event reporting plan separates background noise as 
might be seen with any patient with cirrhosis and cancer from study-related events 
that are relevant to subject safety. In order to achieve this goal, the DSM plan for this 
study will focus on rapid and specific identification and reporting of the following as 
SAEs: 
• Events which are serious and likely (probably or definitely) related to the 
investigational component of study therapy (high dose radiotherapy) 
• Events occurring at unusual frequency or severity in study subjects compared to 

21 
 
non-study subjects undergoing similar treatment 
• Events that are serious and unexpected 
 
Therefore, we will not report as SAEs events that coincide with a typical cirrhosis or 
cancer course (ie, expected) unless they are related to the investigational therapy 
 
8.2.3 Expected Adverse Events 
An adverse event (AE) is considered “expected” if it is a common side effect related 
to abdominal radiotherapy. Examples of this include nausea, vomiting, dehydration, 
fatigue, musculoskeletal discomfort/pain, and dermatitis in the treatment field. 
 
8.2.4 Unexpected Adverse Event 
An adverse event (AE) is considered “unexpected” if it is not a common side effect 
related to abdominal radiotherapy. 
 
8.3 
Adverse Event Characteristics 
 
8.3.1 CTCAE Term 
(AE description) and grade: The descriptions and grading scales found in the NCI 
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 will be utilized 
for AE reporting. All appropriate treatment areas should have access to a copy of the 
CTCAE version 4.0. A copy of the CTCAE version 4.0 can be down loaded from the 
CTEP web site. (http://ctep.cancer.gov) 
 
8.3.2 Attribution of the AE 
The investigator or co-investigator is responsible for assignment of attribution. 
Definite – The AE is clearly related to the study treatment 
Probable – The AE is likely related to the study treatment 
Possible – The AE may be related to the study treatment  Unlikely – 
The AE is doubtfully related to the study treatment Unrelated – The 
AE is clearly NOT related to the study treatment 
8.4 
Serious Adverse Event Reporting Guidelines 
8.4.1 The Principal Investigator must be notified within 5 business day of study team’s 
knowledge of any event meeting the criteria and definition of a serious adverse 
event, regardless of attribution, occurring during the study. 
8.4.2 The investigator must report all events meeting the criteria and definition of a serious 
adverse event that are unexpected and possibly related (definite, probable or 
possible) to study treatment to the local IRB within 7 days of study team’s knowledge. 
8.4.3 All Serious Adverse that are unexpected and possibly related (definite, probable or 
possible) to study treatment will be reported to the IRB using CTO Serious Adverse 
Event form. 
 
8.5 
Routine Reporting 
All other adverse events- such as those that are expected, or are unlikely or definitely not 
related to the study participation- are to be reported annually as part of regular data 
submission. 
 
8.6 
Reporting of Unanticipated Problems 
There are types of incidents, experiences and outcomes that occur during the conduct of 
human subjects research that represent unanticipated problems but are not considered 
adverse events. For example, some unanticipated problems involve social or economic harm 
instead of the physical or psychological harm associated with adverse events. In other 
cases, unanticipated problems place subjects or others at increased risk of harm, but no 
harm occurs. 
 

22 
 
Upon becoming aware of any incident, experience, or outcome (not related to an adverse 
event) that may represent an unanticipated problem, the investigator should assess whether 
the incident, experience, or outcome represents an unanticipated problem. The incident, 
experience or outcomes is considered unanticipated if it meets all of the following criteria: 
 
1. Unexpected (in terms of nature, severity, or frequency); 
2. Related or possibly related to participation in the research; and 
3. Suggests that the research places subjects or others at a greater risk of harm 
than was previously known or recognized. 
 
If the investigator determines that the incident, experience, or outcome represents an 
unanticipated problem, the investigator must report it to the IRB within 14 calendar days 
of the study team becoming aware of the problem. 
 
8.7 
Stopping Rules 
There are separate stopping rules for efficacy and toxicity. The goal is to stop the trial if 
there is evidence that the true rate of toxicity (defined in section 8.2) exceeds 10% OR 
the true rate of local progression within 6 months exceeds 30%. The efficacy rule will be 
evaluated 6 months after the 10th patient is enrolled. Given expected enrollment of about 
1 patient per month, this evaluation will occur when approximately 16 patients have been 
enrolled. The trial will be stopped if 5 or more of the 10 patients with 6 month follow-up 
experienced disease-related progression within 6 months of treatment. When the true 
probability of progression within 6 months is 10, 30 or 50%, the probability of stopping is 
1, 15 and 62%, respectively. 
 
The toxicity rule will be evaluated after 15 patients are evaluable for toxicity which will 
occur 3 months after enrollment of the 15th patient. If 4 or more patients experience 
unacceptable toxicity, defined as radiation induced liver disease, the trial will be 
halted. When the true probability of toxicity is 5, 10 or 30%, the probability of stopping is 
<1, 6 and 70%, respectively. 
 
 
9.0 
DRUG INFORMATION 
 
9.1 Indocyanine green: Indocyanine Green has FDA approval for determining hepatic function 
and liver blood flow. Please refer to the Package Insert for complete details. 
 
9.2 Description: IC-GREEN™ is a sterile, lyophilized green powder containing 25 mg of 
indocyanine green with no more than 5% sodium iodide. It is packaged with Aqueous Solvent 
consisting of Sterile Water for Injection used to dissolve the indocyanine green. ICОGREEN™ is 
to be administered intravenously. Indocyanine green is a water soluble, tricarbocyanine dye with 
a peak spectral absorption at 800 nm. The chemical name for Indocyanine Green is 1 H- 
Benz[e]indolium,2-[7-[1,3-dihydro-1,1-dimethyl-3-(4-sulfobutyl)-2H-benz[e]indol-2-ylidene]-1,3,5- 
heptatrienyl]-1,1-dimethyl-3-(4-sulfobutyl)-hydroxide, inner salt, sodium salt. IC-GREEN™ has a 
pH of approximately 6.5 when reconstituted. Each vial of IC-GREEN™ contains 25 mg of 
indocyanine green as a sterile lyophilized powder. 
 
 
 
 

23 
 
9.3 Side effects: Anaphylactic or urticarial reactions have been reported in patients with or without 
history of allergy to iodides. If such reactions occur, treatment with the appropriate agents, e.g., 
 
epinephrine, antihistamines, and corticosteroids should be administered. See package insert for 
comprehensive list of adverse events. 
 
9.4 Drug Interactions: No interactions with patient medications. Heparin preparations containing 
sodium bisulfite reduce the absorption peak of ICОGREEN™ in blood and, therefore, should not be 
used as an anticoagulant for the collection of samples for analysis. 
 
 
9.5 Preparation and Dispensing: Under sterile conditions, the IC-GREEN™ powder should be 
dissolved with the Aqueous Solvent provided for this product, and the solution used within 6 hours 
after it is prepared. If a precipitate is present, discard the solution. The amount of solvent to be 
used can be calculated from the dosage form which follows. It is recommended that the syringe 
used for injection of the dye be rinsed with this diluent. Isotonic saline should be used to flush the 
residual dye from the cardiac catheter into the circulation so as to avoid hemolysis. With the 
exception of the rinsing of the dye injection syringe, saline is used in all other parts of the 
catheterization procedure. 
 
9.6 Administration for patients indicated to receive IC-Green from the treating physician: 
9.6.1 IC-GREEN testing will be administered according to the study calendar. 
9.6.2 The patient will be studied in a fasting state. Patients should not eat 4 hours prior to 
the test. Coffee and/or water are allowed up to approximately two hours before the 
test. Patients should take all of their medications as usual. The patient will be 
weighed and the dosage calculated on the basis of a recommended 0.5 mg/kg of 
body weight. The dose given must be within 20% of the total recommended dose. 
There will be approximately a 6 cc blood draw followed by rapid IV push of the IC- 
GREEN at time 0. Following I.V. administration via catheter, serum samples will be 
collected at approximately 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes after injecting the dye. Each 
blood draw will be approximately 6 cc. The patient will have two different catheters 
one will be used for the IC-GREEN infusion, and the other catheter will be used to 
draw the samples. The catheter will be flushed with saline following each blood draw. 
9.6.3 The IC-GREEN test will be administered by trained personnel in the Michigan Clinical 
Research Unit “MCRU”. The dye is commercially available and will be ordered from 
UMHS pharmacy (formulary). Radiographic contrast agents are administered 
routinely in the department and it is fully equipped to treat an anaphylactic reaction, 
should one occur. 
 
10.0 
CORRELATIVES/SPECIAL STUDIES 
The goal of the planned correlative studies is to collect data on plasma biomarkers of treatment 
efficacy, toxicity, and liver function to plan further enhancements to individualized RT. 
 
10.1 
Sample Collection Guidelines 
 
10.1.1 Blood and urine sample collection and processing 
10.1.1.1 : Collection of approximately 30-50 mls of blood will be 
performed by venipuncture at the specified time points. When possible, blood 
collection will be coordinated with other routine blood studies. These blood 
samples will be drawn at the clinical blood drawing station in the Radiation 
Oncology department at UH or at the Michigan Clinical Research Unit (MCRU). 
10.1.1.2 Blood Specimen Processing: Whole blood will be obtained by 
venipuncture at each time point and will be processed at Michigan Clinical 
Research Unit (MCRU) specimen core and processing laboratory. Blood Samples 
will be labeled with the subject’s coded study number and collection date. 

24 
 
 
The processing will happen as described in the current SOP of the Biorepository. 
10.1.1.3 Subjects will provide approximately 20-40 ml of urine at the specified 
time points, if able. 
10.1.1.4 Urine Processing: The urine samples will be processed at the MCRU 
specimen core and processing laboratory. A maximum of 20 2-ml aliquot tubes 
will be filled at each collection. 
 
10.1.2 Biopsy collection and processing: 
10.1.2.1 For patients who will undergo standard of care percutaneous fiducial 
placement at the University of Michigan for radiation targeting, they will optionally 
also consent to undergo percutaneous tumor biopsy during the same procedure. 
2-3 18G cores will be obtained following routine clinical practice. 
10.1.2.2 Biopsy Specimen Processing: Depending on sample abundance, the 
cores will be processed for RNA, DNA, and protein extraction, as well as standard 
histology. For RNA, the cores will be placed into an eppendorf tube and the 
sample covered with RNAlater completely.  It will be stored in a 4 degree 
refrigerator for 24 hours, then transferred to a -80 degree freezer for later 
extraction. For frozen section, part of the sample will be placed into a plastic mold, 
and the sample covered with OCT compound completely, and then stored in -80 
degree freezer immediately. A separate piece of tissue will be snap frozen at -80 
degree freezer separately for later DNA and protein extraction. Standard methods 
for formalin-fixed paraffin embedding will be followed. 
 
10.2 
Specimen Banking 
Blood and urine specimens not immediately utilized for plasma biomarkers will be stored 
for future biomarker analysis, as we anticipate advancement in experimental technology 
and preliminary results. Other techniques and tests also will be applied if they are found 
to be superior. 
 
10.3 
Virtual radiotherapy planning 
CTs and MRIs obtained as part of this study will be coded and the information used for 
further advancements to treatment planning, including deformable registration and dose 
accumulation. 
 
 
11.0 
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 
11.1 
Study Design 
This is a pilot study of individualized adaptive RT, which consists of 3/5 of a planned total 
course of treatment, a one month break, assessment of global and spatial liver function 
change using IC-Green or ALBI, and perfusion MRI, and the remainder of treatment 
adjusted for global and spatial changes in liver function.   The primary endpoints are to 
establish the feasibility of this approach and to obtain preliminary estimates of safety and 
efficacy both overall and as they relate to treatment and patient characteristics. At the 
completion of this trial we will have the necessary data to define a SBRT treatment 
approach that is individualized and adaptive and ready to be compared to standard SBRT 
in a randomized trial.   
 
Patients will have an initial plan with total dose chosen such that the estimated probability of 
toxicity (increase in CP of 2 points or more within 6 months of RT) from the first three of five 
planned treatments is at most 10%. In order to protect the safety of individual patients, after 
delivering 60% of the planned total treatment, there will be a 1 month break at the end of 
which, ALBI or ICG will be measured again and a new treatment plan will be developed. 
This last course of treatment may be adapted (relative to the first course) globally in one of 2 
ways. First, if there is no remaining enhancement on the MRI scan, no further radiation will 
be given because the tumor is likely to be cured. The second possible adaptation is intended 

25 
 
to prevent clinically significant decline in liver function in patients whose livers appear to be 
sensitive to RT. Child-Pugh (CP) score is a standard measure of liver function, and an 
increase of 2 points or more on this scale is considered clinically significant. Early changes 
in  ICG retention and ALBI reveal subclinical changes in liver function that predict later liver 
toxicity, assessed by a change of 2 in CP score 6 months after treatment.  
Maximizing tumor control and minimizing liver toxicity are competing objectives when 
selecting RT dose for these patients.  To make this tradeoff explicit and quantitative, the dose 
during the second course of treatment will be selected as the minimum of 
1) The dose that maximizes Prob(Local Control at 1 year) – 4*P(Toxicity) 
2) The dose associated with a 25% estimated risk of toxicity.   
That is, additional dose is deemed to be beneficial if the increase in local control is at least 4 
times greater than the increase in toxicity. The key advantage of this approach over an 
isotoxic approach is that patients are exposed to risk of toxicity in direct proportion to their 
benefit in terms of increased local control.  Thus patients are not unnecessarily exposed to 
higher rates of toxicity (e.g. 20%) unless the improvement in expected local control is large 
enough.  Similarly, patients are not constrained to an arbitrary rate of toxicity (e.g. 15 or 20%) 
if allowing the rate of toxicity to exceed this threshold results in a large enough increase in 
local control.  At the same time we still place a hard upper limit of 25% on the risk of toxicity 
to any patient. The overall rate of toxicity in this population of patients is expected to be lower 
than 25%.   
In the above, toxicity is defined as increase in CP of 2 points or more within 6 months of RT 
and local control is defined as absence of tumor progression within 1 year of treatment. For 
purposes of this dose selection, local control will be estimated from a simple Cox model as a 
function of tumor dose while the toxicity model will include the change in ICGR15 at the mid-
treatment timepoint. 
The decision to continue treating patients with further radiation is based on analysis of the 
information from the ICG results or ALBI, and not RECIST measurements. These 
measurements are recommended and are not required to determine patients’ coming off-study 
treatment or study protocol. In addition, baseline measurements are not needed at the time of 
enrollment. 
 
 
11.2 
Sample Size and Accrual 
This is a pilot trial to gather the data necessary to plan a randomized phase II study with a 
control group receiving standard therapy. The planned accrual is 80 evaluable patients over 
two years. An evaluable patient is a patient that has received their complete prescribed 
treatment (including those whose ICG measurements or ALBI precluded the second phase of 
treatment and those for whom other toxicity prevented them from receiving a full course of 
treatment). The high level goal of this trial is to define an individualized and adaptive approach 
to use of RT in this patient population.  Key components of individualizing and adapting 
treatment are models that relate expected toxicity and tumor control outcomes to RT dose and 
other patient level characteristics.  Part of the reason for the sample size of 80 is to refine 
these models prior to initiating a randomized trial.  For toxicity, our preliminary data suggests 
that mean liver dose (or some other measure of dose to normal liver), baseline liver function 
(e.g. CP score) and mid-treatment change in ICGR15 are the most important factors.  If our 
overall event rate for toxicity is about 20%, we expect to have approximately 16 toxicity events 
which, in combination with some data from similarly treated previous patients, should be 
sufficient to estimate parameters in a toxicity model with 3 predictors.  For tumor control, 
tumor dose is expected to be the most significant predictor.  There will likely be a lower rate of 
local progression events so that this model may need to have fewer predictors.  In addition to 
further defining statistical models this trial will permit us to estimate rates of toxicity and tumor 
control that will be key when designing a randomized trial with power to reject a specific null 
hypothesis.   
 
This treatment will be considered sufficiently promising to initiate a phase II trial if itcauses 
toxicity (increase in CP score of 2 points or more within 6 months of treatment) in no more 

26 
 
than 25% of patients and results in a  local control rate (at 1 year) of at least 80%.   
 
We expect to be able to accrue 20 patients per year and thus to complete accrual in 
approximately 4 years.  
 
11.3 
Data Analysis Plans 
Primary Aims: The first primary aim is feasibility which is defined as the ability to 
successfully deliver the full treatment including all adaptations and in particular the perfusion 
based planning and replanning. In the simplest analyses, feasibility will simply be 
summarized as the proportion of patients for whom the intended treatment was feasible. The 
reasons for lack of feasibility for any patients will be investigated individually. 
 
The primary efficacy endpoint is local control, measured as the time to progression of the 
treated lesion. Patients with no evidence of local progression at the time of data analysis will 
be censored at the last date on which they were evaluated for local progression. Local 
progression will be summarized with Kaplan-Meier curves. The estimated rate of local control 
at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months will be estimated and reported with 95% confidence intervals. Cox 
regression models will be used to assess the relation between the hazard of local progression 
and tumor dose and other covariates.   
 
The primary toxicity endpoint is defined as a change in Child Pugh score of greater than or 
equal to 2 within 6 months of SBRT. Secondary toxicity endpoints include changes in ALBI 
scores and grade 3 toxicities described in section 8.  RILD is a rare but serious side effect 
that will also be summarized if it occurs.  Logistic regression models will be used to estimate 
the association between baseline (primarily baseline liver function such as CP score and 
mean liver dose and other dose metrics such as D700) and mid-treatment variables (e.g. 
change in ICGR15) and the probability of toxicity. We will include interactions between dose 
and baseline liver function as there is some evidence that patients with worse liver function 
are more sensitive to radiation than patients with better baseline liver function.  
 
Secondary Aims: The relation between various biomarkers and treatment efficacy will be 
assessed by including the biomarkers as covariates in Cox regression models for local 
progression. The relation between biomarkers and toxicity will be assessed in logistic 
regression models for the binary or ordinal toxicity outcomes and linear regression models for 
continuous measures of toxicity or liver function such as ICGR15 or ALBI. 
 
Quality of life will be summarized descriptively at baseline (pre-RT) and at each post RT 
timepoint.  Change from baseline will be calculated for each patient and summarized 
descriptively as well as tested for statistical significance using a paired t-test. 
 
12.0 
DATA AND SAFETY MONITORING 
This trial will be monitored in accordance with the NCI approved University of Michigan 
Comprehensive Cancer Center Data and Safety Monitoring Plan. The study specific Data and 
Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC), consisting of the protocol investigators, data manager or 
designee and other members of the study team involved with the conduct of the trial, will meet 
quarterly or more frequently depending on the activity of the protocol. The discussion will include 
matters related to the safety of study participants (SAE/UaP reporting), validity and integrity of the 
data, enrollment rate relative to expectations, characteristics of participants, retention of 
participants, adherence to the protocol (potential or real protocol deviations) and data 
completeness. 
 
At the regular DSMC meetings, the protocol specific Data and Safety Monitoring Report form will 
be completed. The report will be signed by the Principal Investigator or by one of the co- 
investigators. 
 
Data and Safety Monitoring Reports will be submitted to the University of Michigan 
Comprehensive Cancer Center Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) on a quarterly basis 

27 
 
for independent review. 
 
13.0 
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND AUDITS 
The Data Safety Monitoring Board can request a ‘for cause’ audit of the trial if the board identifies 
a need for a more rigorous evaluation of study‐related issues. A “for cause” audit would be 
conducted by the Quality Assurance Review Committee (QARC) of the University of Michigan 
Comprehensive Cancer Center. 
 
A regulatory authority (e.g. FDA) may also wish to conduct an inspection of the study, during its 
conduct or even after its completion. If an inspection has been requested by a regulatory 
authority, the site investigator must immediately inform the Clinical Trials Office that such a 
request has been made. 

28 
 
 
14.0 
REFERENCES 
1. 
Parkin, D.M., Bray, F., Ferlay, J. & Pisani, P. Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. 
International journal of cancer 94, 153-156 (2001). 
2. 
Jemal, A., et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 58, 71-96 (2008). 
3. 
Deuffic, S., Poynard, T., Buffat, L. & Valleron, A.J. Trends in primary liver cancer. Lancet 351, 214-
215 (1998). 
4. 
El-Serag, H.B., Davila, J.A., Petersen, N.J. & McGlynn, K.A. The continuing increase in the incidence 
of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: an update. Annals of internal medicine 139, 817-
823 (2003). 
5. 
Tanaka, Y., et al. A comparison of the molecular clock of hepatitis C virus in the United States and 
Japan predicts that hepatocellular carcinoma incidence in the United States will increase over the 
next two decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 
America 99, 15584-15589 (2002). 
6. 
Abdalla, E.K., et al. Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency 
ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases. Annals of surgery 239, 
818-825; discussion 825-817 (2004). 
7. 
Lencioni, R., et al. Early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: long-term results 
of percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation. Radiology 234, 961-967 (2005). 
8. 
Garrean, S., Hering, J., Saied, A., Helton, W.S. & Espat, N.J. Radiofrequency ablation of primary and 
metastatic liver tumors: a critical review of the literature. American journal of surgery 195, 508-
520 (2008). 
9. 
Liu, E., et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for primary and metastatic liver tumors. 
Translational oncology 6, 442-446 (2013). 
10. 
Bruix, J., et al. Transarterial embolization versus symptomatic treatment in patients with advanced 
hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized, controlled trial in a single institution. 
Hepatology 27, 1578-1583 (1998). 
11. 
Pelletier, G., et al. A randomized trial of hepatic arterial chemoembolization in patients with 
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology 11, 181-184 (1990). 
12. 
Llovet, J.M. Evidence-based medicine in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of 
gastroenterology and hepatology 17 Suppl 3, S428-433 (2002). 
13. 
Llovet, J.M., Burroughs, A. & Bruix, J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 362, 1907-1917 (2003). 
14. 
Llovet, J.M. & Bruix, J. Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular 
carcinoma: Chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology 37, 429-442 (2003). 
15. 
Llovet, J.M. & Bruix, J. Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 
2008. Journal of hepatology 48 Suppl 1, S20-37 (2008). 
16. 
Dawson, L.A., et al. Analysis of radiation-induced liver disease using the Lyman NTCP model. 
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 53, 810-821 (2002). 
17. 
Ben-Josef, E., et al. Phase II trial of high-dose conformal radiation therapy with concurrent hepatic 
artery floxuridine for unresectable intrahepatic malignancies. Journal of clinical oncology : official 
journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 23, 8739-8747 (2005). 
18. 
Thomas, E., Chapet, O., Kessler, M.L., Lawrence, T.S. & Ten Haken, R.K. Benefit of using biologic 
parameters (EUD and NTCP) in IMRT optimization for treatment of intrahepatic tumors. 
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 62, 571-578 (2005). 
19. 
Feng, M.F., Suresh, K., Schipper, M.J., Bazzi, L., Ben-Josef, E., Matuszak, M.M., Parikh, N.D., 
Welling, T.H., Normolle, D., Ten Haken, R.K., Lawrence, T.S. Individualized Adaptive Stereotactic 
Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Patients at High Risk for Liver Damage:  A Phase II Clinical Trial. 
JAMA Oncology [in press] (2017). 
20. 
Emami, B., et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. International journal of 

29 
 
radiation oncology, biology, physics 21, 109-122 (1991). 
21. 
Lawrence, T.S., et al. Hepatic toxicity resulting from cancer treatment. International journal of 
radiation oncology, biology, physics 31, 1237-1248 (1995). 
22. 
Feng, M., Brunner, T.B. & Ben-Josef, E. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Cancer: 
Effective Therapy With Minimal Impact on Quality of Life. International journal of radiation 
oncology, biology, physics 93, 26-28 (2015). 
23. 
Toesca, D.A.S., et al. Assessment of hepatic function decline after stereotactic body radiation 
therapy for primary liver cancer. Practical radiation oncology 7, 173-182 (2017). 
24. 
Toesca, D.A., et al. Central liver toxicity after SBRT: An expanded analysis and predictive 
nomogram. Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic 
Radiology and Oncology 122, 130-136 (2017). 
25. 
McPartlin, A.J. & Dawson, L.A. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. 
Cancer journal 22, 296-301 (2016). 
26. 
Velec, M., et al. Predictors of Liver Toxicity Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for 
Hepatocellular Carcinoma. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 97, 939-
946 (2017). 
27. 
Imamura, H., Sano, K., Sugawara, Y., Kokudo, N. & Makuuchi, M. Assessment of hepatic reserve for 
indication of hepatic resection: decision tree incorporating indocyanine green test. Journal of 
hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery 12, 16-22 (2005). 
28. 
Gottlieb, M.E., Stratton, H.H., Newell, J.C. & Shah, D.M. Indocyanine green. Its use as an early 
indicator of hepatic dysfunction following injury in man. Archives of surgery 119, 264-268 (1984). 
29. 
Cao, Y., et al. Prediction of liver function by using magnetic resonance-based portal venous 
perfusion imaging. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 85, 258-263 (2013). 
30. 
Linard, C., et al. Acute induction of inflammatory cytokine expression after gamma-irradiation in 
the rat: effect of an NF-kappaB inhibitor. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, 
physics 58, 427-434 (2004). 
31. 
Geraci, J.P. & Mariano, M.S. Radiation hepatology of the rat: parenchymal and nonparenchymal 
cell injury. Radiation research 136, 205-213 (1993). 
32. 
Anscher, M.S., Peters, W.P., Reisenbichler, H., Petros, W.P. & Jirtle, R.L. Transforming growth 
factor beta as a predictor of liver and lung fibrosis after autologous bone marrow transplantation 
for advanced breast cancer. The New England journal of medicine 328, 1592-1598 (1993). 
33. 
Haire, W.D. Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. 
Critical care medicine 30, S257-262 (2002). 
34. 
Kong, F.M., Ao, X., Wang, L. & Lawrence, T.S. The use of blood biomarkers to predict radiation lung 
toxicity: a potential strategy to individualize thoracic radiation therapy. Cancer control : journal of 
the Moffitt Cancer Center 15, 140-150 (2008). 
35. 
Bruix, J., Sherman, M. & American Association for the Study of Liver, D. Management of 
hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53, 1020-1022 (2011). 
36. 
Johnson, F., et al.  Assessment of Liver Function in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New 
Evidence-Based Approach—The ALBI Grade.  Journal of Clinical Oncology 33, 550-558 (2004).  
 
 

30 
 
 
15. 
APPENDIX I 
 
Liver MR Imaging Protocol (subject to minor change) 
 
1. Breath-holding VIBE Dixon scan to obtain fat and water in-phase and out-phase, and 
calculated fat and water images, acquisition time ~ 20 seconds 
2. Free-breathing internal-trigged T2 weighted scan, acquisition time 2-3 min 
3. Free-breathing internal trigged diffusion weighted scan, acquisition time ~ 4 min 
4. Free-breathing pre-contrast T1 weighted scan using a new starVIBE (or radialVIBE with 
radial sampling and suppressing motion artifacts) sequence, acquisition time ~ 1 min 
Or breath-holding pre-contrast T1 weighted scan using a conventional VIBE sequence, 
acquisition time ~20 s 
5. Free-breathing T1 weighted scan with contrast injection using the starVIBE (or 
RadialVIBE) sequence, to reconstruct low-spatial resolution dynamic contrast enhanced 
images, and high-spatial resolution arterial and portal vein phase images using either 
vendor provided online option or an offline in-house software . Acquisition time is ~3-4 
min.  If gadoxetic-acid (Eovist) is chosen as the contrast agent, acquisition will be extended 
up to 20 min. 
6. A late phase T1-weighted scan using the same sequence