Jeong Kyong Lee1,2, Surachate Siripongsakun1,3, Simin Bahrami1, Steven S Raman1, James Sayre1,4, David S Lu5. 1. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Chalubhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. dlu@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the amount of tissue contraction after microwave (MW) versus radiofrequency (RF) ablation of liver tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five hepatic tumors in 65 patients who underwent percutaneous MW or RF ablations were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent MRI within 6 months before the ablation and 24 h after the procedure. Two blinded radiologists, by consensus, performed measurements on the corresponding series of pre and post-ablation MRI. Absolute and relative contraction of liver, tumor, and control were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients underwent MW ablations, and 44 patients underwent RF ablations. The absolute and relative contraction of the ablation zone were significantly greater with MW than RF ablation (p = 0.003 to <0.001). Thirty-two lesions were visible on both pre- and post-ablation MRI. MW ablation had significantly more tumor contraction as compared to RF ablation (p = 0.003 to 0.009). The control measurements demonstrated no significant difference in normal tissue variation between MW and RF groups. CONCLUSIONS: MW ablation of hepatic tumors produced significantly more contraction of tumor and ablated hepatic tissue compared to RF ablation. Tissue contraction should be taken into account during pre-procedural planning and assessing treatment response by comparing pre- and post-ablation images.
PURPOSE: To compare the amount of tissue contraction after microwave (MW) versus radiofrequency (RF) ablation of liver tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five hepatic tumors in 65 patients who underwent percutaneous MW or RF ablations were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent MRI within 6 months before the ablation and 24 h after the procedure. Two blinded radiologists, by consensus, performed measurements on the corresponding series of pre and post-ablation MRI. Absolute and relative contraction of liver, tumor, and control were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients underwent MW ablations, and 44 patients underwent RF ablations. The absolute and relative contraction of the ablation zone were significantly greater with MW than RF ablation (p = 0.003 to <0.001). Thirty-two lesions were visible on both pre- and post-ablation MRI. MW ablation had significantly more tumor contraction as compared to RF ablation (p = 0.003 to 0.009). The control measurements demonstrated no significant difference in normal tissue variation between MW and RF groups. CONCLUSIONS: MW ablation of hepatic tumors produced significantly more contraction of tumor and ablated hepatic tissue compared to RF ablation. Tissue contraction should be taken into account during pre-procedural planning and assessing treatment response by comparing pre- and post-ablation images.
Authors: Malgorzata M Bala; Robert P Riemsma; Robert Wolff; Michal Pedziwiatr; Jerzy W Mitus; Dawid Storman; Mateusz J Swierz; Jos Kleijnen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-10
Authors: Timo T M Oosterveer; Gonnie C M van Erp; Pim Hendriks; Alexander Broersen; Christiaan G Overduin; Carla S P van Rijswijk; Arian R van Erkel; Rutger W van der Meer; Maarten E Tushuizen; Adriaan Moelker; Martijn R Meijerink; Otto M van Delden; Koert P de Jong; Christiaan van der Leij; Maarten L J Smits; Thijs A J Urlings; Jeffrey P B M Braak; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Bianca van Duijn-de Vreugd; Evelijn Zeijdner; Jelle J Goeman; Jurgen J Fütterer; Minneke J Coenraad; Jouke Dijkstra; Mark C Burgmans Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.797
Authors: Aleksandar Radosevic; Rita Quesada; Clara Serlavos; Juan Sánchez; Ander Zugazaga; Ana Sierra; Susana Coll; Marcos Busto; Guadalupe Aguilar; Daniel Flores; Javier Arce; José María Maiques; Montserrat Garcia-Retortillo; José Antonio Carrion; Laura Visa; María Villamonte; Eva Pueyo; Enrique Berjano; Macarena Trujillo; Patricia Sánchez-Velázquez; Luís Grande; Fernando Burdio Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Robert Peter Reimer; Nils Große Hokamp; Julius Niehoff; David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Mariam Heidar; Roger Wahba; Dirk Stippel; David Maintz; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Christian Wybranski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240