OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and feasibility of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation of liver tumours and to determine whether post-operative MRI correlates with intra-operative imaging. METHODS: 31 patients were recruited into two ethically approved clinical trials (median age 64; mean BMI 26 kg m(-2)). Patients with liver tumours (primary or metastatic) underwent a single HIFU treatment monitored using intra-operative B-mode ultrasound. Follow-up consisted of radiology and histology (surgical trial) or radiology alone (radiology trial). Radiological follow-up was digital subtraction contrast-enhanced MRI. RESULTS: Treatment according to protocol was possible in 30 of 31 patients. One treatment was abandoned because of equipment failure. Transient pain and superficial skin burns were seen in 81% (25/31) and 39% (12/31) of patients, respectively. One moderate skin burn occurred. One patient died prior to radiological follow-up. Radiological evidence of ablation was seen in 93% (27/29) of patients. Ablation accuracy was good in 89% (24/27) of patients. In three patients the zone of ablation lay ≤2 mm outside the tumour. The median cross-sectional area (CSA) of the zone of ablation was 5.0 and 5.1 cm(2) using intra-operative and post-operative imaging, respectively. The mean MRI:B-mode CSA ratio was 1.57 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.57-2.71]. There was positive correlation between MRI and B-mode CSA (Spearman's r=0.48; 95% CI 0.11-0.73; p=0.011) and the slope of linear regression was significantly non-zero (1.23; 95% CI=0.68-1.77; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: HIFU ablation of liver tumours is safe and feasible. HIFU treatment is accurate, and intra-operative assessment of treatment provides an accurate measure of the zone of ablation and correlates well with MRI follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and feasibility of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation of liver tumours and to determine whether post-operative MRI correlates with intra-operative imaging. METHODS: 31 patients were recruited into two ethically approved clinical trials (median age 64; mean BMI 26 kg m(-2)). Patients with liver tumours (primary or metastatic) underwent a single HIFU treatment monitored using intra-operative B-mode ultrasound. Follow-up consisted of radiology and histology (surgical trial) or radiology alone (radiology trial). Radiological follow-up was digital subtraction contrast-enhanced MRI. RESULTS: Treatment according to protocol was possible in 30 of 31 patients. One treatment was abandoned because of equipment failure. Transient pain and superficial skin burns were seen in 81% (25/31) and 39% (12/31) of patients, respectively. One moderate skin burn occurred. One patient died prior to radiological follow-up. Radiological evidence of ablation was seen in 93% (27/29) of patients. Ablation accuracy was good in 89% (24/27) of patients. In three patients the zone of ablation lay ≤2 mm outside the tumour. The median cross-sectional area (CSA) of the zone of ablation was 5.0 and 5.1 cm(2) using intra-operative and post-operative imaging, respectively. The mean MRI:B-mode CSA ratio was 1.57 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.57-2.71]. There was positive correlation between MRI and B-mode CSA (Spearman's r=0.48; 95% CI 0.11-0.73; p=0.011) and the slope of linear regression was significantly non-zero (1.23; 95% CI=0.68-1.77; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: HIFU ablation of liver tumours is safe and feasible. HIFU treatment is accurate, and intra-operative assessment of treatment provides an accurate measure of the zone of ablation and correlates well with MRI follow-up.
Authors: S Nahum Goldberg; Clement J Grassi; John F Cardella; J William Charboneau; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra Gervais; Alice R Gillams; Robert A Kane; Fred T Lee; Tito Livraghi; John McGahan; David A Phillips; Hyunchul Rhim; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: T A Leslie; J E Kennedy; R O Illing; G R Ter Haar; F Wu; R R Phillips; P J Friend; I S D Roberts; D W Cranston; M R Middleton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: R O Illing; J E Kennedy; F Wu; G R ter Haar; A S Protheroe; P J Friend; F V Gleeson; D W Cranston; R R Phillips; M R Middleton Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-10-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Margaret G Keane; Konstantinos Bramis; Stephen P Pereira; Giuseppe K Fusai Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Tatiana D Khokhlova; Yak-Nam Wang; Julianna C Simon; Bryan W Cunitz; Frank Starr; Marla Paun; Lawrence A Crum; Michael R Bailey; Vera A Khokhlova Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tao Sun; Yongzhi Zhang; Chanikarn Power; Phillip M Alexander; Jonathan T Sutton; Muna Aryal; Natalia Vykhodtseva; Eric L Miller; Nathan J McDannold Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthew D Bucknor; Viola Rieke; Loi Do; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link; Maythem Saeed Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Aparna Singh; A Gloria Nyankima; M Anthony Phipps; Vandiver Chaplin; Paul A Dayton; Charles Caskey Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 3.609