OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the causes of mistargeting during percutaneous sonographically guided radio frequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and to determine factors affecting the feasibility of a second ablation session. METHODS: This study received Institutional Review Board approval, and informed consent was waived. Among 2213 percutaneous sonographically guided radio frequency ablations performed in our hospital, we searched for mistargeting cases and analyzed the causes of mistargeting. To determine which factors affected the feasibility of a second ablation session, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-one cases of mistargeting occurred during the first ablation session, and 4 cases occurred during the second session. Of the 41 patients with mistargeted hepatocellular carcinomas during the first session, 39 who underwent replanning sonography were able to be analyzed for causes of mistargeting. The most common cause of mistargeting was confusion with cirrhotic nodules (87.2% [34 of 39]), followed by poor conspicuity of the hepatocellular carcinoma (69.2% [27 of 39]), a poor sonic window (28.2% [11 of 39]), a poor electrode path (7.7% [3 of 39]), and inaccurate electrode placement (2.6% [1 of 39]). Artificial ascites (P = .035) and the presence of more than 3 mistargeting causes (P = .017) were independent factors affecting feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: The most common cause of mistargeting was confusion with cirrhotic nodules, followed by poor conspicuity of the hepatocellular carcinoma, a poor sonic window, a poor electrode path, and inaccurate electrode placement. The use of artificial ascites and the presence of more than 3 mistargeting causes were factors affecting the feasibility of a second radio frequency ablation session.
OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the causes of mistargeting during percutaneous sonographically guided radio frequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and to determine factors affecting the feasibility of a second ablation session. METHODS: This study received Institutional Review Board approval, and informed consent was waived. Among 2213 percutaneous sonographically guided radio frequency ablations performed in our hospital, we searched for mistargeting cases and analyzed the causes of mistargeting. To determine which factors affected the feasibility of a second ablation session, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-one cases of mistargeting occurred during the first ablation session, and 4 cases occurred during the second session. Of the 41 patients with mistargeted hepatocellular carcinomas during the first session, 39 who underwent replanning sonography were able to be analyzed for causes of mistargeting. The most common cause of mistargeting was confusion with cirrhotic nodules (87.2% [34 of 39]), followed by poor conspicuity of the hepatocellular carcinoma (69.2% [27 of 39]), a poor sonic window (28.2% [11 of 39]), a poor electrode path (7.7% [3 of 39]), and inaccurate electrode placement (2.6% [1 of 39]). Artificial ascites (P = .035) and the presence of more than 3 mistargeting causes (P = .017) were independent factors affecting feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: The most common cause of mistargeting was confusion with cirrhotic nodules, followed by poor conspicuity of the hepatocellular carcinoma, a poor sonic window, a poor electrode path, and inaccurate electrode placement. The use of artificial ascites and the presence of more than 3 mistargeting causes were factors affecting the feasibility of a second radio frequency ablation session.
Authors: Philippa Meershoek; Nynke S van den Berg; Jacob Lutjeboer; Mark C Burgmans; Rutger W van der Meer; Catharina S P van Rijswijk; Matthias N van Oosterom; Arian R van Erkel; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2021-07-08