INTRODUCTION: Radio frequency ablation (RFA) represents a new technique for local destruction of liver tumors. Indication and procedure are poorly validated at present. METHOD: To record the actual nationwide RFA application in Germany, a survey of 2026 hospitals with standardized questionnaires was conducted. RESULTS: With a respond rate of 17.5%, results from 58 hospitals covering 1700 ablated patients were analyzed. In 25.9% of them, RFA is already used in potentially curative resectable tumors, in 22.4% even when incomplete ablation for tumor mass reduction is expected. Of the 58 hospitals, 75% combine resection and RFA to reach a so-called R-0 situation. The maximal tumor sizes they quoted for achieving complete ablation ranged from <3 cm to 11 cm. In contraindications for RFA, the tumor size, number of tumors, critical localization of the tumor, and disorders of liver function were mentioned the most. CONCLUSION: This survey documents significant discrepancies in indication, application, procedure, and results in RFA for liver tumors. The lack of general standards and an overestimation of the method may lead to uncritical application, neglect of standard therapy, or unsatisfying results.
INTRODUCTION: Radio frequency ablation (RFA) represents a new technique for local destruction of liver tumors. Indication and procedure are poorly validated at present. METHOD: To record the actual nationwide RFA application in Germany, a survey of 2026 hospitals with standardized questionnaires was conducted. RESULTS: With a respond rate of 17.5%, results from 58 hospitals covering 1700 ablated patients were analyzed. In 25.9% of them, RFA is already used in potentially curative resectable tumors, in 22.4% even when incomplete ablation for tumor mass reduction is expected. Of the 58 hospitals, 75% combine resection and RFA to reach a so-called R-0 situation. The maximal tumor sizes they quoted for achieving complete ablation ranged from <3 cm to 11 cm. In contraindications for RFA, the tumor size, number of tumors, critical localization of the tumor, and disorders of liver function were mentioned the most. CONCLUSION: This survey documents significant discrepancies in indication, application, procedure, and results in RFA for liver tumors. The lack of general standards and an overestimation of the method may lead to uncritical application, neglect of standard therapy, or unsatisfying results.
Authors: G D Dodd; M C Soulen; R A Kane; T Livraghi; W R Lees; Y Yamashita; A R Gillams; O I Karahan; H Rhim Journal: Radiographics Date: 2000 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: T Livraghi; S N Goldberg; F Monti; A Bizzini; S Lazzaroni; F Meloni; S Pellicanò; L Solbiati; G S Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gianpiero Gravante; John Overton; Roberto Sorge; Neil Bhardwaj; Matthew S Metcalfe; David M Lloyd; Ashley R Dennison Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.452