Thomas J Vogl1, Andrei Roman2, Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin3, Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt4, Iliana Bednarova5, Benjamin Kaltenbach1. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Department of Radiology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cairo University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. 4. Medical Clinic I, "Fuerth'' Hospital, University of Erlangen, Fuerth, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to retrospectively compare the local tumor control rates between low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) microwave ablation devices in the treatment of <3 cm lung metastases. METHODS: A total of 36 patients (55 tumors) were treated with the LF system (915 MHz) and 30 patients (39 tumors) were treated with the HF system (2450 MHz) between January 2011 and March 2016. Computed tomography (CT) scans performed prior to and 24 hours after the ablation were used to measure the size of the ablation zone and to calculate the ablation margin. The subsequent CTs were used to detect local tumor progression. Possible predictive factors for local progression were analyzed. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 months with a median of 13.8 months for the LF group and 11.7 months for the HF group. RESULTS: The ablation margin (P = 0.015), blood vessel proximity (P = 0.006), and colorectal origin (P = 0.029) were significantly associated with the local progression rate. The local progression rates were 36.3% for LF ablations and 12.8% for HF ablations. The 6, 12, and 18 months local progression-free survival rates were 79%, 65.2% and 53% for the LF group and 97.1%, 93.7%, and 58.4% for the HF group, with a significant difference between the survival curves (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: HF ablations resulted in larger ablation margins with fewer local progression compared with LF ablations.
PURPOSE: We aimed to retrospectively compare the local tumor control rates between low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) microwave ablation devices in the treatment of <3 cm lung metastases. METHODS: A total of 36 patients (55 tumors) were treated with the LF system (915 MHz) and 30 patients (39 tumors) were treated with the HF system (2450 MHz) between January 2011 and March 2016. Computed tomography (CT) scans performed prior to and 24 hours after the ablation were used to measure the size of the ablation zone and to calculate the ablation margin. The subsequent CTs were used to detect local tumor progression. Possible predictive factors for local progression were analyzed. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 months with a median of 13.8 months for the LF group and 11.7 months for the HF group. RESULTS: The ablation margin (P = 0.015), blood vessel proximity (P = 0.006), and colorectal origin (P = 0.029) were significantly associated with the local progression rate. The local progression rates were 36.3% for LF ablations and 12.8% for HF ablations. The 6, 12, and 18 months local progression-free survival rates were 79%, 65.2% and 53% for the LF group and 97.1%, 93.7%, and 58.4% for the HF group, with a significant difference between the survival curves (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: HF ablations resulted in larger ablation margins with fewer local progression compared with LF ablations.
Authors: Gianpaolo Carrafiello; Monica Mangini; Federico Fontana; Anna Maria Ierardi; Giuseppe De Marchi; Nicola Rotolo; Claudio Chini; Salvatore Cuffari; Carlo Fugazzola Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Luigi Solbiati; Christopher L Brace; David J Breen; Matthew R Callstrom; J William Charboneau; Min-Hua Chen; Byung Ihn Choi; Thierry de Baère; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; David Gianfelice; Alice R Gillams; Fred T Lee; Edward Leen; Riccardo Lencioni; Peter J Littrup; Tito Livraghi; David S Lu; John P McGahan; Maria Franca Meloni; Boris Nikolic; Philippe L Pereira; Ping Liang; Hyunchul Rhim; Steven C Rose; Riad Salem; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Michael C Soulen; Masatoshi Tanaka; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Kerri A Simo; Victor B Tsirline; David Sindram; Matthew T McMillan; Kyle J Thompson; Ryan Z Swan; Iain H McKillop; John B Martinie; David A Iannitti Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Farrah J Wolf; David J Grand; Jason T Machan; Thomas A Dipetrillo; William W Mayo-Smith; Damian E Dupuy Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T de Baère; A Aupérin; F Deschamps; P Chevallier; Y Gaubert; V Boige; M Fonck; B Escudier; J Palussiére Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Krishna Pillai; Javid Akhter; Terence C Chua; Mena Shehata; Nayef Alzahrani; Issan Al-Alem; David L Morris Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Kristina I Ringe; Carolin Lutat; Christian Rieder; Andrea Schenk; Frank Wacker; Hans-Juergen Raatschen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: H Petra Kok; Erik N K Cressman; Wim Ceelen; Christopher L Brace; Robert Ivkov; Holger Grüll; Gail Ter Haar; Peter Wust; Johannes Crezee Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2020 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: Mrudula B Glassberg; Sudip Ghosh; Jeffrey W Clymer; Rana A Qadeer; Nicole C Ferko; Behnam Sadeghirad; George Wj Wright; Joseph F Amaral Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 4.147