| Literature DB >> 27338093 |
Yun Mou1, Qiyu Zhao2, Liyun Zhong1, Fen Chen2, Tianan Jiang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser ablation with a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser is a minimally invasive approach which is able to achieve a precise tissue necrosis. The study was aimed to assess the feasibility and efficiency of laser ablation in the treatment of retroperitoneal and hepatic portal unresectable metastatic lymph nodes.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatic portal lymph node; Laser ablation; Metastasis; Retroperitoneal lymph node
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27338093 PMCID: PMC4917948 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-0917-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1The equipment of MyLab 90 (Esaote, Genova, Italy) together with laser ablation instrument and the picture of laser fiber
Fig. 2Ultrasound images in case 1 with a retroperitoneal metastatic lymph node. a Two optical fibers (hollow arrow) were inserted into the hypoechoic nodule (arrow). b After laser ablation, the nodule was reviewed as a hyperechoic lesion. c The nodule was enhanced by SonoVue injection in contrast-enhanced ultrasound before laser ablation. d There was no enhancement in the nodule by SonoVue injection immediately after laser ablation
Characteristics of patients and their follow-up imaging results
| Gender | Primary cancer | Size (mm) | Location | Number of fibers | Power (w) | Energy (J) | 1-month follow-up | 3-month follow-up | 6-month follow-up | Progression elsewhere | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | m | CCA | 31 × 25 | Retroperitoneum | 2 | 3 | 3600 | PR | PR | NA | Liver and left kidney progression in 3-month follow-up |
| Case 2 | m | HCC | 24 × 12 | Hepatic portal | 1 | 3 | 3000 | PR | PR | PR | No |
| 18 × 15 | Hepatic portal | 1 | 3 | 2700 | PR | PR | PR | ||||
| Case 3 | f | HCC | 20 × 14 | Hepatic portal | 1 | 3 | 2700 | PR | PR | PR | No |
| Case 4 | m | CCA | 31 × 21 | Hepatic portal | 2 | 3 | 3600 | PR | PR | PR | Liver progression in 6-month follow-up |
| Case 5 | m | HCC | 15 × 12 | Hepatic portal | 1 | 3 | 1800 | PR | PR | PR | No |
| 15 × 11 | Hepatic portal | 1 | 3 | 1800 | PR | PR | PR | ||||
| Case 6 | m | CCA | 15 × 12 | Hepatic portal | 1 | 3 | 1800 | PR | PR | PR | No |
| Case 7 | f | HCC | 18 × 14 | Retroperitoneum | 1 | 3 | 2700 | PR | PR | PR | New lymph nodes in retroperitoneum in 6-month follow-up |
| 28 × 19 | Retroperitoneum | 2 | 3 | 3600 | PR | PR | LP | ||||
| Case 8 | m | CCA | 18 × 14 | Retroperitoneum | 1 | 3 | 1800 | PR | PR | PR | No |
CCA cholangiocarcinoma, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, CR complete response, PR partial response, LP lymph node progression, NA not available
Fig. 3Contrast-enhanced CT pre-treatment and 1 month MRI follow-up images from Case 1, a patient with retroperitoneal metastatic lymph node (arrow) treated with laser ablation. a: Contrast-enhanced CT showed that a lymph node was enhanced heterogeneously in arterial phase. b: There was reduction enhancement of the nodule about 88 % by gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in arterial phase indicating a local partial response
Changes in pain scores in the follow-up period
| Pain grade | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Before treatment | 1-month follow-up | 3-month follow-up | 6-month follow-up |
| 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | NA |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mean ± SD | 3.38 ± 0.52 | 1.12 ± 0.35* | 1.12 ± 0.35* | 1.14 ± 0.38* |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
NA not available
*p < 0.05 vs before treatment
Child-Pugh grade and serum tumor marker follow-up data
| Child-Pugh grade | AFP (ng/mL) | CA19-9 (U/mL) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Before treatment | 1-month follow-up | 3-month follow-up | 6-month follow-up | Before treatment | 1-month follow-up | 3-month follow-up | 6-month follow-up | Before treatment | 1-month follow-up | 3-month follow-up | 6-month follow-up |
| 1 | B | B | B | NA | 205.1 | 195.3 | 105.4 | NA | ||||
| 2 | B | B | B | B | 151.7 | 65.2 | 66.8 | 79.5 | ||||
| 3 | B | B | B | B | 97.6 | 17.6 | 35.3 | 75.1 | ||||
| 4 | B | B | B | B | 545.2 | 236.1 | 118.7 | 302.5 | ||||
| 5 | A | A | A | A | 137.3 | 54.2 | 28.6 | 14.4 | ||||
| 6 | B | B | B | B | 311.2 | 142.2 | 147.4 | 159.9 | ||||
| 7 | B | B | B | B | 84.2 | 55.9 | 78.8 | 153.6 | ||||
| 8 | B | B | B | B | 346.6 | 102.4 | 98.4 | 105.8 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 117.70 ± 31.97 | 48.22 ± 20.98* | 52.38 ± 24.24 | 80.65 ± 56.99 | 352.02 ± 142.13 | 169.00 ± 58.73 | 117.48 ± 21.65* | 189.40 ± 101.61* | ||||
|
| 0.015 | 0.060 | 0.433 | 0.066 | 0.045 | 0.020 | ||||||
AFP alpha fetoprotein protein, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19-9
*p < 0.05 vs before treatment