OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different cut-off temperature levels for a threshold-based prediction of the coagulation zone in magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiofrequency (RF) ablation of liver tumours. METHODS: Temperature-sensitive measurements were acquired during RF ablation of 24 patients with primary (6) and secondary liver lesions (18) using a wide-bore 1.5 T MR sytem and compared with the post-interventional coagulation zone. Temperature measurements using the proton resonance frequency shift method were performed directly subsequent to energy application. The temperature maps were registered on the contrast-enhanced follow-up MR images acquired 4 weeks after treatment. Areas with temperatures above 50°, 55° and 60°C were segmented and compared with the coagulation zones. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: No major complications occurred and all tumours were completely treated. No tumour recurrence was observed at the follow-up examination after 4 weeks. Two patients with secondary liver lesions showed local tumour recurrence after 4 and 7 months. The 60°C threshold level achieved the highest positive predictive value (87.7 ± 9.9) and the best prediction of the coagulation zone. CONCLUSIONS: For a threshold-based prediction of the coagulation zone, the 60°C cut-off level achieved the best prediction of the coagulation zone among the tested levels. KEY POINTS: • Temperature monitoring can be used to survey MR-guided radiofrequency ablation • The developing ablation zone can be estimated based on post-interventional temperature measurements • A 60°C threshold level can be used to predict the ablation zone • The 50°C and 55°C temperature zones tend to overestimate the ablation zone.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different cut-off temperature levels for a threshold-based prediction of the coagulation zone in magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiofrequency (RF) ablation of liver tumours. METHODS: Temperature-sensitive measurements were acquired during RF ablation of 24 patients with primary (6) and secondary liver lesions (18) using a wide-bore 1.5 T MR sytem and compared with the post-interventional coagulation zone. Temperature measurements using the proton resonance frequency shift method were performed directly subsequent to energy application. The temperature maps were registered on the contrast-enhanced follow-up MR images acquired 4 weeks after treatment. Areas with temperatures above 50°, 55° and 60°C were segmented and compared with the coagulation zones. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: No major complications occurred and all tumours were completely treated. No tumour recurrence was observed at the follow-up examination after 4 weeks. Two patients with secondary liver lesions showed local tumour recurrence after 4 and 7 months. The 60°C threshold level achieved the highest positive predictive value (87.7 ± 9.9) and the best prediction of the coagulation zone. CONCLUSIONS: For a threshold-based prediction of the coagulation zone, the 60°C cut-off level achieved the best prediction of the coagulation zone among the tested levels. KEY POINTS: • Temperature monitoring can be used to survey MR-guided radiofrequency ablation • The developing ablation zone can be estimated based on post-interventional temperature measurements • A 60°C threshold level can be used to predict the ablation zone • The 50°C and 55°C temperature zones tend to overestimate the ablation zone.
Authors: R D Peters; E Chan; J Trachtenberg; S Jothy; L Kapusta; W Kucharczyk; R M Henkelman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: John R Leyendecker; Gerald D Dodd; Glenn A Halff; Victor A McCoy; Dacia H Napier; Linda G Hubbard; Kedar N Chintapalli; Shailendra Chopra; W Kenneth Washburn; Robert M Esterl; Francisco G Cigarroa; Ruth E Kohlmeier; Francis E Sharkey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roee S Lazebnik; Michael S Breen; Maryann Fitzmaurice; Sherif G Nour; Jonathan S Lewin; David L Wilson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Baudouin Denis de Senneville; Charles Mougenot; Bruno Quesson; Iulius Dragonu; Nicolas Grenier; Chrit T W Moonen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christina Schraml; Nina F Schwenzer; Petros Martirosian; Michael Bitzer; Ulrich Lauer; Claus D Claussen; Marius Horger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tito Livraghi; Luigi Solbiati; M Franca Meloni; G Scott Gazelle; Elkan F Halpern; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gerard C van Rhoon; Theodoros Samaras; Pavel S Yarmolenko; Mark W Dewhirst; Esra Neufeld; Niels Kuster Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mohamed A Abbass; Allison-Joy Garbo; Neeraja Mahalingam; Jakob K Killin; T Douglas Mast Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Julian Alpers; Bennet Hensen; Maximilian Rötzer; Daniel L Reimert; Thomas Gerlach; Ralf Vick; Marcel Gutberlet; Frank Wacker; Christian Hansen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Lorenzo Monfardini; Andrea Garnero; Maria Giulia Zampino; Franco Orsi; Paolo Della Vigna; Guido Bonomo; Gianluca Maria Varano; Marco Busso; Carlo Gazzera; Paolo Fonio; Andrea Veltri; Marco Calandri Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sofia R Gameiro; Jack P Higgins; Matthew R Dreher; David L Woods; Goutham Reddy; Bradford J Wood; Chandan Guha; James W Hodge Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 3.240