OBJECTIVES: Real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided cryoablation has been investigated in open MRI systems with low magnetic fields (0.2-0.5 T). More advanced imaging techniques and faster imaging rates are possible at higher magnetic fields, which often require a closed-bore magnet design. However, there is very little experience with real-time interventions in closed-bore 1.5-T MRI units. Herein, we report our initial experience with real-time MRI-guided cryoablation of small renal tumors using a prototype balanced steady-state free precession imaging sequence in a closed-bore 1.5-T MRI system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 2008 to April 2012, 18 patients underwent MRI-guided cryoablation of small renal tumors. A 1.5-T cylindrical MRI scanner with a 125 cm × 70 cm bore and a prototype balanced steady-state free precession sequence (BEAT interactive real-time tip tracking) were used to guide the placement of 17-gauge cryoprobes in real time. Ice ball formation was monitored every 3 minutes in 1 or more imaging planes. Each ablation consisted of 2 freeze-thaw cycles. Contrast-enhanced MRI was performed after the second active thaw period. Follow-up consisted of clinical evaluation and renal protocol computed tomography (CT) or MRI performed at 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and annually thereafter. RESULTS: During the study period, we successfully ablated 18 tumors in 18 patients in 18 sessions. The mean tumor size was 2.2 cm (median, 2 cm; range, 1.2-4.4 cm). The number of cryoprobes used per patient was determined based on tumor size. The mean number of cryoprobes used per patient was 3 (median, 3 cryoprobes; range, 2-4 cryoprobes). Fifty-six cryoprobes, 9 biopsy needles, and 2 hydrodissection needles were successfully placed under real-time MRI guidance using BEAT interactive real-time tip tracking sequence. Hydrodissection under MRI guidance was successfully performed in 4 patients. In each patient, contrast-enhanced MRI performed after the second active thaw period revealed a sharply defined avascular zone surrounding the targeted tumor, which confirmed complete ablation of the tumor with adequate margins. Although contrast media slowly accumulated in the targeted tumor in 9 patients immediately after the procedure, follow-up imaging studies performed at a mean of 16.7 months revealed no contrast enhancement within the ablation zone in these patients. Disease-specific, metastasis-free, and local recurrence-free survival rates were all 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time placement and manipulation of cryoprobes during MRI-guided cryoablation of small renal tumors in a closed-bore, high-magnetic field scanner are feasible. Technical and clinical success rates are similar to those of patients who undergo CT-guided radiofrequency ablation or cryoablation of small renal tumors. Our findings suggest that MRI-guided ablation has several advantages over CT-guided ablation, including real-time guidance for probe placement, multiplanar imaging, exquisite soft tissue contrast, and lack of ionizing radiation.
OBJECTIVES: Real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided cryoablation has been investigated in open MRI systems with low magnetic fields (0.2-0.5 T). More advanced imaging techniques and faster imaging rates are possible at higher magnetic fields, which often require a closed-bore magnet design. However, there is very little experience with real-time interventions in closed-bore 1.5-T MRI units. Herein, we report our initial experience with real-time MRI-guided cryoablation of small renal tumors using a prototype balanced steady-state free precession imaging sequence in a closed-bore 1.5-T MRI system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 2008 to April 2012, 18 patients underwent MRI-guided cryoablation of small renal tumors. A 1.5-T cylindrical MRI scanner with a 125 cm × 70 cm bore and a prototype balanced steady-state free precession sequence (BEAT interactive real-time tip tracking) were used to guide the placement of 17-gauge cryoprobes in real time. Ice ball formation was monitored every 3 minutes in 1 or more imaging planes. Each ablation consisted of 2 freeze-thaw cycles. Contrast-enhanced MRI was performed after the second active thaw period. Follow-up consisted of clinical evaluation and renal protocol computed tomography (CT) or MRI performed at 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and annually thereafter. RESULTS: During the study period, we successfully ablated 18 tumors in 18 patients in 18 sessions. The mean tumor size was 2.2 cm (median, 2 cm; range, 1.2-4.4 cm). The number of cryoprobes used per patient was determined based on tumor size. The mean number of cryoprobes used per patient was 3 (median, 3 cryoprobes; range, 2-4 cryoprobes). Fifty-six cryoprobes, 9 biopsy needles, and 2 hydrodissection needles were successfully placed under real-time MRI guidance using BEAT interactive real-time tip tracking sequence. Hydrodissection under MRI guidance was successfully performed in 4 patients. In each patient, contrast-enhanced MRI performed after the second active thaw period revealed a sharply defined avascular zone surrounding the targeted tumor, which confirmed complete ablation of the tumor with adequate margins. Although contrast media slowly accumulated in the targeted tumor in 9 patients immediately after the procedure, follow-up imaging studies performed at a mean of 16.7 months revealed no contrast enhancement within the ablation zone in these patients. Disease-specific, metastasis-free, and local recurrence-free survival rates were all 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time placement and manipulation of cryoprobes during MRI-guided cryoablation of small renal tumors in a closed-bore, high-magnetic field scanner are feasible. Technical and clinical success rates are similar to those of patients who undergo CT-guided radiofrequency ablation or cryoablation of small renal tumors. Our findings suggest that MRI-guided ablation has several advantages over CT-guided ablation, including real-time guidance for probe placement, multiplanar imaging, exquisite soft tissue contrast, and lack of ionizing radiation.
Authors: Surena F Matin; Kamran Ahrar; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Debra A Gervais; Francis J McGovern; Ronald J Zagoria; Ronald A Zagoria; Robert G Uzzo; John Haaga; Martin I Resnick; Jihad Kaouk; Inderbir S Gill Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Kemal Tuncali; Eric vanSonnenberg; Paul R Morrison; Sridhar Shankar; Nikhil Ramaiya; Jerome P Richie Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Stella K Kang; Samson Wong; Henry Rusinek; Jeff L Zhang; Shigeki Arizono; William C Huang; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Edgar F Suan; Vivian S Lee; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Adam W Levinson; Li-Ming Su; Devesh Agarwal; Myrna Sroka; Thomas W Jarrett; Louis R Kavoussi; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Eugene G Kholmovski; Nicolas Coulombe; Joshua Silvernagel; Nathan Angel; Dennis Parker; Rob Macleod; Nassir Marrouche; Ravi Ranjan Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2016-03-21
Authors: Bilwaj Gaonkar; Luke Macyszyn; Michel Bilello; Mohammed Salehi Sadaghiani; Hamed Akbari; Mark A Atthiah; Zarina S Ali; Xiao Da; Yiqang Zhan; Donald O'Rourke; Sean M Grady; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Junichi Tokuda; Laurent Chauvin; Brian Ninni; Takahisa Kato; Franklin King; Kemal Tuncali; Nobuhiko Hata Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Naoyuki Shono; Brian Ninni; Franklin King; Takahisa Kato; Junichi Tokuda; Takahiro Fujimoto; Kemal Tuncali; Nobuhiko Hata Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.071