Fabrice Bing1,2,3, Jonathan Vappou2, Michel de Mathelin2, Afshin Gangi2,3. 1. a Radiology Department , Hôpital d'Annecy , Metz-Tessy , France. 2. b ICube , University of Strasbourg , Strasbourg , France. 3. c Interventional Radiology Department , Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg , Strasbourg , France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the suitability of MRgHIFU for osteoid osteomas (OOs) and bone metastases in patients who underwent minimally-invasive percutaneous thermal ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-seven lesions (115 metastases and 52 OOs) treated percutaneously between October 2014 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Tumors were located in the spine or sacrum (54), pelvis (43), limbs (50), ribs (17) and sternum (3). Tumor volume, matrix, anatomical environment and need for protection of surrounding structures or consolidation were assessed. Cases were classified into three categories: (a) lesions suitable for MRgHIFU therapy alone; (b) lesions suitable for MRgHIFU if protection of surrounding structures and/or bone consolidation is performed; (c) lesions not suitable for MRgHIFU. RESULTS: Twenty-six (50%) of OOs were classified as suitable for MRgHIFU alone and 17 (32.7%) as suitable for MRgHIFU with hydro-dissection. Matrix of treatable OOs was sclerotic (19), lytic (15) or mixed (9), with mean volume 0.56 cm3. Forty-one (35.7%) of metastases were classified as suitable for MRgHIFU alone and 43 (37.4%) as suitable with hydro-dissection and/or consolidation. Matrix of metastases was sclerotic (13), lytic (37) or mixed (34), with mean volume 71.9 cm3. Mean depth of targetable lesions was 50.9 ± 28.4 mm. 97.7% of pelvic lesions and 94% of peripheral bone lesions were targetable by HIFU. 66.6% of spinal or sacral lesions were considered untreatable. CONCLUSION: MRgHIFU cannot be systematically performed non-invasively on bone tumors. Combination with minimally-invasive thermo-protective techniques may increase the number of eligible cases.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the suitability of MRgHIFU for osteoid osteomas (OOs) and bone metastases in patients who underwent minimally-invasive percutaneous thermal ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-seven lesions (115 metastases and 52 OOs) treated percutaneously between October 2014 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Tumors were located in the spine or sacrum (54), pelvis (43), limbs (50), ribs (17) and sternum (3). Tumor volume, matrix, anatomical environment and need for protection of surrounding structures or consolidation were assessed. Cases were classified into three categories: (a) lesions suitable for MRgHIFU therapy alone; (b) lesions suitable for MRgHIFU if protection of surrounding structures and/or bone consolidation is performed; (c) lesions not suitable for MRgHIFU. RESULTS: Twenty-six (50%) of OOs were classified as suitable for MRgHIFU alone and 17 (32.7%) as suitable for MRgHIFU with hydro-dissection. Matrix of treatable OOs was sclerotic (19), lytic (15) or mixed (9), with mean volume 0.56 cm3. Forty-one (35.7%) of metastases were classified as suitable for MRgHIFU alone and 43 (37.4%) as suitable with hydro-dissection and/or consolidation. Matrix of metastases was sclerotic (13), lytic (37) or mixed (34), with mean volume 71.9 cm3. Mean depth of targetable lesions was 50.9 ± 28.4 mm. 97.7% of pelvic lesions and 94% of peripheral bone lesions were targetable by HIFU. 66.6% of spinal or sacral lesions were considered untreatable. CONCLUSION: MRgHIFU cannot be systematically performed non-invasively on bone tumors. Combination with minimally-invasive thermo-protective techniques may increase the number of eligible cases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone metastases; HIFU; interventional oncology; osteoid osteoma; thermal ablation
Authors: Beatrice Lena; Mateusz C Florkow; Cyril J Ferrer; Marijn van Stralen; Peter R Seevinck; Evert-Jan P A Vonken; Martijn F Boomsma; Derk J Slotman; Max A Viergever; Chrit T W Moonen; Clemens Bos; Lambertus W Bartels Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 7.034