PURPOSE: To estimate effective dose during CT-guided cryoablation of liver tumors, and to assess which procedural factors contribute most to dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. A total of 20 CT-guided percutaneous liver tumor cryoablation procedures were performed in 18 patients. Effective dose was determined by multiplying the dose length product for each CT scan obtained during the procedure by a conversion factor (0.015mSv/mGy-cm), and calculating the sum for each phase of the procedure: planning, targeting, monitoring, and post-ablation survey. Effective dose of each phase was compared using a repeated measures analysis. Using Spearman correlation coefficients, effective doses were correlated with procedural factors including number of scans, ratio of targeting distance to tumor size, anesthesia type, number of applicators, performance of ancillary procedures (hydrodissection and biopsy), and use of CT fluoroscopy. RESULTS: Effective dose per procedure was 72±18mSv. The effective dose of targeting (37.5±12.5mSv) was the largest component compared to the effective dose of the planning phase (4.8±2.2mSv), the monitoring phase (25.5±6.8mSv), and the post-ablation survey (4.1±1.9mSv) phase (p<0.05). Effective dose correlated positively only with the number of scans (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose of CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of liver tumors can be substantial. Reducing the number of scans during the procedure is likely to have the greatest effect on lowering dose.
PURPOSE: To estimate effective dose during CT-guided cryoablation of liver tumors, and to assess which procedural factors contribute most to dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. A total of 20 CT-guided percutaneous liver tumor cryoablation procedures were performed in 18 patients. Effective dose was determined by multiplying the dose length product for each CT scan obtained during the procedure by a conversion factor (0.015mSv/mGy-cm), and calculating the sum for each phase of the procedure: planning, targeting, monitoring, and post-ablation survey. Effective dose of each phase was compared using a repeated measures analysis. Using Spearman correlation coefficients, effective doses were correlated with procedural factors including number of scans, ratio of targeting distance to tumor size, anesthesia type, number of applicators, performance of ancillary procedures (hydrodissection and biopsy), and use of CT fluoroscopy. RESULTS: Effective dose per procedure was 72±18mSv. The effective dose of targeting (37.5±12.5mSv) was the largest component compared to the effective dose of the planning phase (4.8±2.2mSv), the monitoring phase (25.5±6.8mSv), and the post-ablation survey (4.1±1.9mSv) phase (p<0.05). Effective dose correlated positively only with the number of scans (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose of CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of liver tumors can be substantial. Reducing the number of scans during the procedure is likely to have the greatest effect on lowering dose.
Authors: Peter J Littrup; Abraham Ahmed; Hussein D Aoun; Daniel L Noujaim; Ted Harb; Sam Nakat; Khaled Abdallah; Barbara A Adam; Raghu Venkatramanamoorthy; Wael Sakr; J Edson Pontes; Lance K Heilbrun Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Matthew R Callstrom; Thomas D Atwell; J William Charboneau; Michael A Farrell; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Jeff A Sloan; Paul J Novotny; Timothy J Welch; Timothy P Maus; Gilbert Y Wong; Kathy J Brown Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Filip Banovac; Jonathan Tang; Sheng Xu; David Lindisch; Ho Young Chung; Elliot B Levy; Thomas Chang; Michael F McCullough; Ziv Yaniv; Bradford J Wood; Kevin Cleary Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ajay Gupta; Mohamad E Allaf; Louis R Kavoussi; Thomas W Jarrett; David Y S Chan; Li-Ming Su; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert M Pohlman; James L Hinshaw; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Meghan G Lubner; Shane A Wells; Fred T Lee; Marci L Alexander; Kelly L Wergin; Tomy Varghese Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 3.694