A Tomasian1, A Wallace2, B Northrup2, T J Hillen2, J W Jennings2. 1. From the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. tomasian.andy@gmail.com. 2. From the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous cryoablation has emerged as a minimally invasive technique for the management of osseous metastases. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous imaging-guided spine cryoablation for pain palliation and local tumor control for vertebral metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging-guided spine cryoablation was performed in 14 patients (31 tumors) with vertebral metastases refractory to conventional chemoradiation therapy or analgesics, to achieve pain palliation and local tumor control in this retrospective study. Spinal nerve and soft-tissue thermal protection techniques were implemented in all ablations. Patient response was evaluated by a pain numeric rating scale administered before the procedure and 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after the procedure. Pre- and postprocedural analgesic requirements (expressed as morphine-equivalent dosages) were also analyzed at the same time points. Pre- and postprocedural cross-sectional imaging was evaluated in all patients to assess local control (no radiographic evidence of disease at the treated sites). Complications were monitored. Analysis of the primary end points was undertaken via paired-comparison procedures by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-one tumors were ablated in 14 patients (9 women and 5 men; 20-73 years of age; mean age, 53 years). The most common tumor location was in the lumbar spine (n = 14, 45%), followed by the thoracic spine (n = 8, 26%), sacrum (n = 6, 19%), coccyx (n = 2, 6%), and cervical spine (n = 1, 3%). There were statistically significant decreases in the median numeric rating scale score and analgesic usage at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month time points (P < .001 for all). Local tumor control was achieved in 96.7% (30/31) of tumors (median follow-up, 10 months). Two patients had transient postprocedural unilateral lower extremity radiculopathy and weakness. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous imaging-guided spine cryoablation is a safe and effective treatment for pain palliation and local tumor control for vertebral metastases.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous cryoablation has emerged as a minimally invasive technique for the management of osseous metastases. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous imaging-guided spine cryoablation for pain palliation and local tumor control for vertebral metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging-guided spine cryoablation was performed in 14 patients (31 tumors) with vertebral metastases refractory to conventional chemoradiation therapy or analgesics, to achieve pain palliation and local tumor control in this retrospective study. Spinal nerve and soft-tissue thermal protection techniques were implemented in all ablations. Patient response was evaluated by a pain numeric rating scale administered before the procedure and 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after the procedure. Pre- and postprocedural analgesic requirements (expressed as morphine-equivalent dosages) were also analyzed at the same time points. Pre- and postprocedural cross-sectional imaging was evaluated in all patients to assess local control (no radiographic evidence of disease at the treated sites). Complications were monitored. Analysis of the primary end points was undertaken via paired-comparison procedures by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-one tumors were ablated in 14 patients (9 women and 5 men; 20-73 years of age; mean age, 53 years). The most common tumor location was in the lumbar spine (n = 14, 45%), followed by the thoracic spine (n = 8, 26%), sacrum (n = 6, 19%), coccyx (n = 2, 6%), and cervical spine (n = 1, 3%). There were statistically significant decreases in the median numeric rating scale score and analgesic usage at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month time points (P < .001 for all). Local tumor control was achieved in 96.7% (30/31) of tumors (median follow-up, 10 months). Two patients had transient postprocedural unilateral lower extremity radiculopathy and weakness. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous imaging-guided spine cryoablation is a safe and effective treatment for pain palliation and local tumor control for vertebral metastases.
Authors: Stephen Lutz; Lawrence Berk; Eric Chang; Edward Chow; Carol Hahn; Peter Hoskin; David Howell; Andre Konski; Lisa Kachnic; Simon Lo; Arjun Sahgal; Larry Silverman; Charles von Gunten; Ehud Mendel; Andrew Vassil; Deborah Watkins Bruner; William Hartsell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthew R Callstrom; Thomas D Atwell; J William Charboneau; Michael A Farrell; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Jeff A Sloan; Paul J Novotny; Timothy J Welch; Timothy P Maus; Gilbert Y Wong; Kathy J Brown Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul G Thacker; Matthew R Callstrom; Timothy B Curry; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Thomas D Atwell; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anil Nicholas Kurup; David A Woodrum; Jonathan M Morris; Thomas D Atwell; Grant D Schmit; Timothy J Welch; Michael J Yaszemski; Matthew R Callstrom Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Matthew R Callstrom; Damian E Dupuy; Stephen B Solomon; Robert A Beres; Peter J Littrup; Kirkland W Davis; Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli; Cheryl Hoffman; Thomas D Atwell; J William Charboneau; Grant D Schmit; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Kathy J Brown; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anil Nicholas Kurup; Jonathan M Morris; Andrea J Boon; Jeffrey A Strommen; Grant D Schmit; Thomas D Atwell; Rickey E Carter; Michael J Brown; C Thomas Wass; Peter S Rose; Matthew R Callstrom Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Ning Mao Kam; Julian Maingard; Hong Kuan Kok; Dinesh Ranatunga; Duncan Brooks; William C Torreggiani; Peter L Munk; Michael J Lee; Ronil V Chandra; Hamed Asadi Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2017-11-16
Authors: Adam N Wallace; Clifford G Robinson; Jeffrey Meyer; Nam D Tran; Afshin Gangi; Matthew R Callstrom; Samuel T Chao; Brian A Van Tine; Jonathan M Morris; Brian M Bruel; Jeremiah Long; Robert D Timmerman; Jacob M Buchowski; Jack W Jennings Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-09-09
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: Wenpeng Gao; Baichuan Jiang; Daniel F Kacher; Barry Fetics; Erez Nevo; Thomas C Lee; Jagadeesan Jayender Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.547