OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided cryoablation in treating small invasive ductal carcinoma and to assess the role of contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI in determining the outcome of cryoablation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive participants with invasive ductal carcinomas up to 15 mm, with limited or no ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), underwent ultrasound-guided cryoablation. Preablation mammography, ultrasound, and CE-MRI were performed to assess eligibility. Clinical status was evaluated at 1 day, 7-10 days, and 2 weeks after ablation. CE-MRI was performed 25-40 days after ablation, followed by surgical resection within 5 days. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided cryoablation was uniformly technically successful, and postablation clinical status was good to excellent in all participants. Cryoablation was not clinically successful in 15% (three of 20 patients). Three participants had residual cancer at the periphery of the cryoablation site. Two participants had viable nonmalignant tissue within the central zone of cryoablation-induced necrosis. Postablation CE-MRI had a sensitivity of 0% (0/3) and specificity of 88% (15/17). The predictive value of negative findings on CE-MRI was 83% (15/18). Correlations between cancer characteristics, cryoablation procedural variables, postablation CE-MRI findings, and surgical specimen features were not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in participants with or without residual cancer. CONCLUSION: In our pilot experience, ultrasound-guided cryoablation of invasive ductal carcinomas up to 15 mm has a clinical failure rate of 15% but is technically feasible and well tolerated by patients. The majority of cryoablation failures are manifest as DCIS outside the cryoablation field. Postablation CE-MRI does not reliably predict cryoablation outcome.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided cryoablation in treating small invasive ductal carcinoma and to assess the role of contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI in determining the outcome of cryoablation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive participants with invasive ductal carcinomas up to 15 mm, with limited or no ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), underwent ultrasound-guided cryoablation. Preablation mammography, ultrasound, and CE-MRI were performed to assess eligibility. Clinical status was evaluated at 1 day, 7-10 days, and 2 weeks after ablation. CE-MRI was performed 25-40 days after ablation, followed by surgical resection within 5 days. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided cryoablation was uniformly technically successful, and postablation clinical status was good to excellent in all participants. Cryoablation was not clinically successful in 15% (three of 20 patients). Three participants had residual cancer at the periphery of the cryoablation site. Two participants had viable nonmalignant tissue within the central zone of cryoablation-induced necrosis. Postablation CE-MRI had a sensitivity of 0% (0/3) and specificity of 88% (15/17). The predictive value of negative findings on CE-MRI was 83% (15/18). Correlations between cancer characteristics, cryoablation procedural variables, postablation CE-MRI findings, and surgical specimen features were not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in participants with or without residual cancer. CONCLUSION: In our pilot experience, ultrasound-guided cryoablation of invasive ductal carcinomas up to 15 mm has a clinical failure rate of 15% but is technically feasible and well tolerated by patients. The majority of cryoablation failures are manifest as DCIS outside the cryoablation field. Postablation CE-MRI does not reliably predict cryoablation outcome.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; breast cancer; cryotherapy; minimally invasive; ultrasound guidance
Authors: Stefan O R Pfleiderer; Martin G Freesmeyer; Christiane Marx; Rosemarie Kühne-Heid; Achim Schneider; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-06-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Guglielmo Manenti; Tommaso Perretta; Eleonora Gaspari; Chiara A Pistolese; Lia Scarano; Elsa Cossu; Elena Bonanno; Oreste C Buonomo; Giuseppe Petrella; Giovanni Simonetti; Salvatore Masala Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marilyn A Roubidoux; Michael S Sabel; Janet E Bailey; Celina G Kleer; Katherine A Klein; Mark A Helvie Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael J Edwards; Ralph Broadwater; Lorraine Tafra; Daleela Jarowenki; Charles Mabry; Peter Beitsch; Pat Whitworth; Robert C Martin; Lori Oetting Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Michael S Sabel; Cary S Kaufman; Pat Whitworth; Helena Chang; Lewis H Stocks; Rache Simmons; Michael Schultz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Julien Garnon; Nitin Ramamurthy; Guillaume Koch; Georgia Tsoumakidou; Jean Caudrelier; Francesco Arrigoni; Luigi Zugaro; Antonio Barile; Carlo Masciocchi; Afshin Gangi Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Nikolai N Korpan; Kecheng Xu; Philipp Schwarzinger; Masashi Watanabe; Gerhard Breitenecker; Le Pivert Patrick Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01