Ilya Lekht1, Mittul Gulati1, Megha Nayyar2, Michael D Katz1, Ramon Ter-Oganesyan1, Mary Marx1, Steven Y Cen3, Edward Grant1. 1. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1500 San Pablo Street, Second Floor Imaging, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1500 San Pablo Street, Second Floor Imaging, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. mnayyar@usc.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, Soto Building 210B, Los Angeles, 90089, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Thermal ablation has emerged as a mainstay therapy for primary and metastatic liver malignancy. Percutaneous thermal ablation is usually performed under CT and/or ultrasound guidance. CT guidance frequently utilizes iodinated contrast for tumor targeting, with additional radiation and contrast required at the end of the procedure to ensure satisfactory ablation margins. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging technique utilizing microbubble contrast agents to demonstrate blood flow and tissue perfusion. In this study, we performed a retrospective review to assess the utility of CEUS in the immediate post ablation detection of residual tumor. METHODS: Sixty-four ablations were retrospectively reviewed. 6/64 ablations (9.4%) had residual tumor on the first follow-up imaging after thermal ablation. There were two groups of patients. Group 1 underwent standard protocol thermal ablation with CT and/or ultrasound guidance. Group 2 not only had thermal ablation with a protocol identical to group 1, but also had CEUS assessment at the conclusion of the procedure to ensure satisfactory ablation zone. RESULTS: The residual tumor rate in group 1 was 16.7% and the residual tumor rate in group 2 was 0%. The difference between the groups was statistically significant with a p value of 0.023. The results suggest that using CEUS assessment immediately after the ablation procedure reduces the rate of residual tumor after thermal ablation. CONCLUSION: CEUS evaluation at the end of an ablation procedure is a powerful technique providing critical information to the treating interventional radiologist, without additional nephrotoxic contrast or ionizing radiation.
PURPOSE: Thermal ablation has emerged as a mainstay therapy for primary and metastatic liver malignancy. Percutaneous thermal ablation is usually performed under CT and/or ultrasound guidance. CT guidance frequently utilizes iodinated contrast for tumor targeting, with additional radiation and contrast required at the end of the procedure to ensure satisfactory ablation margins. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging technique utilizing microbubble contrast agents to demonstrate blood flow and tissue perfusion. In this study, we performed a retrospective review to assess the utility of CEUS in the immediate post ablation detection of residual tumor. METHODS: Sixty-four ablations were retrospectively reviewed. 6/64 ablations (9.4%) had residual tumor on the first follow-up imaging after thermal ablation. There were two groups of patients. Group 1 underwent standard protocol thermal ablation with CT and/or ultrasound guidance. Group 2 not only had thermal ablation with a protocol identical to group 1, but also had CEUS assessment at the conclusion of the procedure to ensure satisfactory ablation zone. RESULTS: The residual tumor rate in group 1 was 16.7% and the residual tumor rate in group 2 was 0%. The difference between the groups was statistically significant with a p value of 0.023. The results suggest that using CEUS assessment immediately after the ablation procedure reduces the rate of residual tumor after thermal ablation. CONCLUSION: CEUS evaluation at the end of an ablation procedure is a powerful technique providing critical information to the treating interventional radiologist, without additional nephrotoxic contrast or ionizing radiation.
Authors: Adam Polikoff; Corinne E Wessner; Rashmi Balasubramanya; Susan Dulka; Ji-Bin Liu; Priscilla Machado; Esika Savsani; Andrej Lyshchik; Colette M Shaw; John R Eisenbrey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-10-13
Authors: Francois H Cornelis; Jeremy C Durack; Simon Y Kimm; Thomas Wimmer; Jonathan A Coleman; Stephen B Solomon; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Akbar N Ashrafi; Nima Nassiri; Inderbir S Gill; Mittul Gulati; Daniel Park; Andre L de Castro Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 2.862
Authors: Constantin Arndt Marschner; Johannes Rübenthaler; Matthias Frank Froelich; Vincent Schwarze; Dirk-André Clevert Journal: Ultrasonography Date: 2020-11-19
Authors: Dean Y Huang; Gibran T Yusuf; Mohammad Daneshi; Raymond Ramnarine; Annamaria Deganello; Maria E Sellars; Paul S Sidhu Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-04
Authors: Johannes Chang; Alexia Dumitrache; Nina Böhling; Jasmin Abu-Omar; Carsten Meyer; Deike Strobel; Julian Luetkens; Andreas Minh Luu; Jürgen Rockstroh; Christian P Strassburg; Jonel Trebicka; Maria A Gonzalez-Carmona; Milka Marinova; Michael Praktiknjo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 4.379