| Literature DB >> 29333120 |
Clara Pañella1, Quim Castellví2, Xavier Moll3, Rita Quesada1, Alberto Villanueva4, Mar Iglesias5, Dolores Naranjo5, Patricia Sánchez-Velázquez1, Anna Andaluz3, Luís Grande1, Antoni Ivorra2, Fernando Burdío1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spread hepatic tumours are not suitable for treatment either by surgery or conventional ablation methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and safety of selectively increasing the healthy hepatic conductivity by the hypersaline infusion (HI) through the portal vein. We hypothesize this will allow simultaneous safe treatment of all nodules by irreversible electroporation (IRE) when applied in a transhepatic fashion.Entities:
Keywords: electrical conductivity; irreversible electroporation; liver tumour
Year: 2017 PMID: 29333120 PMCID: PMC5765318 DOI: 10.1515/raon-2017-0051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Oncol ISSN: 1318-2099 Impact factor: 2.991
Figure 1IRE application model with plate electrodes, in scattered tumoural liver without (A) or with (B) hypersaline infusion through the portal vein and its corresponding numerical simulation (C and D) obtained from the received electric field in healthy and tumoural tissue - own results obtained from our previous research (17, 18). (C) Without hypersaline infusion through the portal vein, there is not selective effect on scattered tumoural nodules. Nevertheless, in (D) with hypersaline infusion through the portal vein, there is an increase on the electric field on scattered tumours (meaning a preferential ablative IRE effect on these nodules) because of the increase in healthy tissue conductivity (σ).
Figure 2General setting of the hypersaline infusion protocol through the portal vein in Sprague Dawley rats (A) and in Athimic rats with implanted tumour (B). After exposing spleen at abdominal midline, hypersaline infusion was performed by trans-splenic puncture with a pump. Hyposaline infusion through the jugular vein was performed to compensate the systemic hypernatremia. Two tetrapolar setup electrodes measured tumour and healthy hepatic conductivity and data were collected with a multi-frecuency device and gathered in a computer.
Comparison between two groups A (Sprague Dawley) and B (Athimic). *PO: Postoperative
| GROUP A | p-value | GROUP B | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration of HI protocol | n= 9 | n=8 | ||||
| Weight increase during PO* (grams) | 100±30.57 | 0.012 | -1.94±37.81 | 0.386 | ||
| Baseline Conductivity in healthy tissue (S/m) | 0.10±0.02 | 0.13±0.02 | ||||
| Conductivity after HI in healthy tissue (S/m) | 0.27±0.75 | 0.008 | 0.49±0.17 | 0.008 | ||
| Baseline Conductivity in tumour tissue (S/m) | NA | 0.24±0.03 | ||||
| Therapeutic window (sec) | NA | 175±115 |
Figure 3Conductivity changes after hypersaline infusion protocol in a representative case of group A (Sprague Dawley) and B (Athimic rats with implanted tumour). In both groups, a sharp increase and a posterior slowing decrease of conductivity in healthy hepatic tissue was observed. On the contrary, conductivity of the tumoural tissue (Group B) was stable. Thus, it created a therapeutic window (TW), the safety period where IRE it would be applied.
Figure 4These were representative livers from group A (Sprague Dawley) and group B (Athimic rats with implanted tumour) after HI protocol at the 4th week of postoperative. Histological analysis revealed the indemnity of the architecture and morphology of healthy hepatocytes (H) of both groups A and B. In group B, histological samples showed that HI protocol did not interfere in tumour (T) evolution.