Literature DB >> 23891044

Comparison of simulation-based treatment planning with imaging and pathology outcomes for percutaneous CT-guided irreversible electroporation of the porcine pancreas: a pilot study.

Thomas Wimmer1, Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli, Narendra Gutta, Paula C Ezell, Sebastien Monette, T Peter Kingham, Majid Maybody, Jeremy C Durack, Yuman Fong, Stephen B Solomon.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the reliability of simulations for planning pancreatic irreversible electroporation (IRE) ablations compared with computed tomography (CT) and pathology outcomes in an animal model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulations were performed varying treatment parameters, including field strength (1.5-2.5 kV/cm), pulse number (70-90 pulses), and pulse length (70-100 µs). Pancreatic IRE was performed in six pigs under CT guidance. Two animals each were sacrificed for histology after 1 day, 14 days, and 28 days. Follow-up CT scans were performed on day 0, day 1, day 14, and day 28. Biochemical markers were collected before the procedure, 1 day after the procedure, and 14 days after the procedure.
RESULTS: All ablation zones could be visualized on CT scan immediately after the procedure and on day 1 follow-up CT scan, and all animals survived until the designated endpoints. Histopathology revealed necrosis and edema on day 1 and fibrosis and glandular atrophy after 28 days. Blood vessels close to the ablation zone appeared normal. Laboratory analysis indicated mild to moderate amylasemia and lipasemia with normalization after 14 days. The ablation size on CT scan measured a mean (± SD) 146% ± 18 (day 0, P < .126) and 168% ± 18 (day 1, P < .026) of the simulation and on pathology measured 119% ± 10 (day 1, not significant) of the simulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from simulations for planning IRE ablations, CT, and pathology may differ from each other. Ablation zones on CT and pathology appear larger than simulated, suggesting that clinically used treatment planning may underestimate the ablation size in the pancreas. © SIR, 2013.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AST; IRE; LDH; aspartate transaminase; irreversible electroporation; lactate dehydrogenase

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23891044     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.05.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  7 in total

Review 1.  Irreversible Electroporation of the Pancreas.

Authors:  Gabriel Chan; Uei Pua
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  Successful ablation of lymph nodes using irreversible electroporation (IRE) in a porcine survival model.

Authors:  Stefan Fritz; Christof M Sommer; Thomas Longerich; Clemens Kuhn-Neureuther; Boris Radeleff; Jens Werner; Thilo Hackert
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  EView: An electric field visualization web platform for electroporation-based therapies.

Authors:  Enric Perera-Bel; Carlos Yagüe; Borja Mercadal; Mario Ceresa; Natalie Beitel-White; Rafael V Davalos; Miguel A González Ballester; Antoni Ivorra
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 4.  Irreversible electroporation and the pancreas: What we know and where we are going?

Authors:  Shamar J Young
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-08-27

5.  Multi-Tissue Analysis on the Impact of Electroporation on Electrical and Thermal Properties.

Authors:  Natalie Beitel-White; Melvin F Lorenzo; Yajun Zhao; Rebecca M Brock; Sheryl Coutermarsh-Ott; Irving C Allen; Navid Manuchehrabadi; Rafael V Davalos
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 4.538

Review 6.  Time-Dependent Impact of Irreversible Electroporation on Pancreas, Liver, Blood Vessels and Nerves: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies.

Authors:  J A Vogel; E van Veldhuisen; P Agnass; J Crezee; F Dijk; J Verheij; T M van Gulik; M R Meijerink; L G Vroomen; K P van Lienden; M G Besselink
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Comparison of ablation defect on MR imaging with computer simulation estimated treatment zone following irreversible electroporation of patient prostate.

Authors:  Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Francois Cornelis; Joseph Mashni; Haruyuki Takaki; Jeremy C Durack; Stephen B Solomon; Jonathan A Coleman
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-02-29
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.