PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of percutaneous multiprobe breast cryoablation (BC) for diverse presentations of cancers that remained in situ after BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and thorough consultation, patients underwent BC after giving informed consent. This study was approved by the institutional review board. In 12 BC sessions, 22 breast cancer foci (stages I-IV) were treated in 11 patients who refused surgery by using multiple 2.4-mm cryoprobes. Five patients had recurrent disease and six had new diagnoses. With use of only local anesthesia, six patients were treated with ultrasonographic (US) guidance and five were treated with both computed tomographic (CT) and US guidance. Saline injections and warming bags were used to protect the skin. Procedure success was defined as 1 cm visible ice beyond all tumor margins. MR imaging and/or clinical follow-up were available for up to 72 months after BC. RESULTS: US produced sufficient ice visualization for small tumors, whereas CT helped confirm overall ice extent. The mean pretreatment breast tumor diameter was 1.7 cm +/- 1.2 (range, 0.5-5.8 cm), and an average of 3.1 cryoprobes produced 100% procedural success with mean ice diameters of 5.1 cm +/- 2.2 (range, 2.0-10.0 cm). No significant complications, retraction, or scarring were noted. Biopsies at the margins of the cryoablation site immediately after BC and at follow-up were all negative. No local recurrences have been noted at an average imaging follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: In conjunction with thorough pre- and postablation MR imaging, CT/US-guided multiprobe BC safely achieved 1 cm visible ice beyond tumor margins with minimal discomfort, good cosmesis, and no short-term local tumor recurrences.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of percutaneous multiprobe breast cryoablation (BC) for diverse presentations of cancers that remained in situ after BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and thorough consultation, patients underwent BC after giving informed consent. This study was approved by the institutional review board. In 12 BC sessions, 22 breast cancer foci (stages I-IV) were treated in 11 patients who refused surgery by using multiple 2.4-mm cryoprobes. Five patients had recurrent disease and six had new diagnoses. With use of only local anesthesia, six patients were treated with ultrasonographic (US) guidance and five were treated with both computed tomographic (CT) and US guidance. Saline injections and warming bags were used to protect the skin. Procedure success was defined as 1 cm visible ice beyond all tumor margins. MR imaging and/or clinical follow-up were available for up to 72 months after BC. RESULTS: US produced sufficient ice visualization for small tumors, whereas CT helped confirm overall ice extent. The mean pretreatment breast tumor diameter was 1.7 cm +/- 1.2 (range, 0.5-5.8 cm), and an average of 3.1 cryoprobes produced 100% procedural success with mean ice diameters of 5.1 cm +/- 2.2 (range, 2.0-10.0 cm). No significant complications, retraction, or scarring were noted. Biopsies at the margins of the cryoablation site immediately after BC and at follow-up were all negative. No local recurrences have been noted at an average imaging follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: In conjunction with thorough pre- and postablation MR imaging, CT/US-guided multiprobe BC safely achieved 1 cm visible ice beyond tumor margins with minimal discomfort, good cosmesis, and no short-term local tumor recurrences.
Authors: Marilyn A Roubidoux; Michael S Sabel; Janet E Bailey; Celina G Kleer; Katherine A Klein; Mark A Helvie Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E D Staren; M S Sabel; L M Gianakakis; G A Wiener; V M Hart; M Gorski; K Dowlatshahi; B F Corning; M F Haklin; G Koukoulis Journal: Arch Surg Date: 1997-01
Authors: Steven P Poplack; Gary M Levine; Lisa Henry; Wendy A Wells; F Scott Heinemann; Cheryl M Hanna; Daniel R Deneen; Tor D Tosteson; Richard J Barth Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Lorenzo Carlo Pescatori; Maria Paola Fedeli; Marco Alì; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hyun J Bang; Peter J Littrup; Brandt P Currier; Dylan J Goodrich; Hussein D Aoun; Lydia C Klein; Jarret C Kuo; Lance K Heilbrun; Shirish Gadgeel; Allen C Goodman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Archana Thakur; Peter Littrup; Elyse N Paul; Barbara Adam; Lance K Heilbrun; Lawrence G Lum Journal: J Immunother Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Jesse J Veenstra; Heather M Gibson; Peter J Littrup; Joyce D Reyes; Michael L Cher; Akira Takashima; Wei-Zen Wei Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 12.701