| Literature DB >> 28652661 |
Qiao-Huan Yan1, Dian-Guo Xu1, Yan-Feng Shen1, Ding-Ling Yuan1, Jun-Hui Bao1, Hai-Bin Li1, Ying-Gang Lv1.
Abstract
AIM: To observe the effect of targeted therapy with 64-slice spiral computed tomography (CT) combined with cryoablation for liver cancer.Entities:
Keywords: 64-slice spiral computed tomography; Cryoablation; Liver cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28652661 PMCID: PMC5473127 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i22.4080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Before cryoablation, patients were placed in the prone position. Liver cancer chemoembolization after interventional therapy is shown, the lipiodol deposition area was the lesion tissue.
Figure 2During cryoablation therapy, patients were placed in the prone position. The needle was placed to the right side of the abdominal wall and the puncture needle was positioned to the lesion bottom wall. The effective freezing area covered the lesions.
Figure 3After the cryoablation treatment, the patient was placed in the prone position. The circular low-density area was the frozen necrotic area, which shows the lesions were within the range and it has good treatment effect.
Postoperative ice coverage of different tumor sizes
| Dual-slice group | < 3 | 38 | 19 | 12 | 7 | 81.58% |
| ≥ 3 | 27 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 92.59% | |
| 64-slice group | < 3 | 42 | 30 | 9 | 3 | 92.86% |
| ≥ 3 | 35 | 26 | 7 | 2 | 94.29% | |
Effective rate = (ice coverage ≥ 80% of the tumor volume in the number of tumors)/(the total number of tumors) × 100%.
P < 0.05, vs the dual-slice group.
Comparison of liver perfusion values before and after treatment (mean ± SD)
| Tumor tissue | Pre-treatment | 47.82 ± 16.71 | 8.51 ± 3.71 | 84.31 ± 13.22 | 48.42 ± 12.85 | 9.16 ± 3.75 | 82.27 ± 14.26 |
| Post-treatment | 20.21 ± 9.42 | 8.13 ± 3.22 | 48.93 ± 9.42 | 26.21 ± 9.36 | 8.53 ± 3.22 | 38.93 ± 9.42 | |
| Adjacent tumor tissues | Pre-treatment | 35.95 ± 15.25 | 47.81 ± 8.51 | 38.92 ± 16.91 | 35.95 ± 15.25 | 45.81 ± 8.51 | 37.92 ± 13.91 |
| Post-treatment | 21.34 ± 9.95 | 39.82 ± 14.33 | 47.01 ± 9.71 | 20.34 ± 9.95 | 37.82 ± 14.33 | 46.01 ± 9.71 | |
| Normal liver tissue | Pre-treatment | 25.65 ± 11.86 | 57.90 ± 18.93 | 28.62 ± 11.72 | 24.87 ± 13.48 | 58.93 ± 16.75 | 27.75 ± 14.68 |
| Post-treatment | 26.02 ± 10.13 | 58.23 ± 16.94 | 27.43 ± 12.23 | 25.89 ± 10.78 | 59.78 ± 13.76 | 26.63 ± 12.25 | |
P < 0.05, post-treatment vs pre-treatment in the group;
P < 0.05, vs the dual-slice group post-treatment. HAP: Hepatic artery perfusion; PVP: Portal vein perfusion; HAPI: Hepatic arterial perfusion index.
Follow-up observation of treatment effect
| Dual-slice group | 65 | 42 (64.62) | 8 (12.31) | 10 (15.38) | 5 (7.69) | 76.93% |
| 64-slice group | 77 | 62 (80.52) | 9 (11.69) | 4 (5.19) | 2 (2.60) | 92.21% |
| Test value | - | χ2 = 8.946 | ||||
| - | 0.02 | 0.003% | ||||
Effective rate = (the number complete ablation cases + the number of mostly ablated cases)/ total number of tumors × 100%.
Postoperative adverse reactions n (%)
| Dual-slice group | 56 | 33 (53.57) | 5 (8.93) | 1 (1.79) | 5 (8.93) | 3(5.36) | 2(3.57) |
| 64-slice group | 68 | 43 (63.24) | 7 (10.29) | 1 (1.47) | 6 (8.82) | 0 | 0 |
| χ2 | - | 1.925 | 0.106 | 0.032 | 0 | 5.508 | 3.635 |
| - | 0.165 | 0.744 | 0.858 | 0.978 | 0.019 | 0.057 |