Microwave Ablation (MWA) of Pulmonary Neoplasms: Clinical Performance of High-Frequency MWA With Spatial Energy Control Versus Conventional Low-Frequency MWA.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new high-frequency (HF) microwave ablation (MWA) technology with spatial energy control for treatment of lung malignancies in comparison with a conventional low-frequency (LF) MWA technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective study, 59 consecutive patients (mean age, 58.9 ± 12.6 [SD] years) were treated in 71 sessions using HF spatial-energy-control MWA. Parameters collected were technical success and efficacy, tumor diameter, tumor and ablation volumes, ablation time, output energy, complication rate, 90-day mortality, local tumor progression (LTP), ablative margin size, and ablation zone sphericity. Results were compared with the same parameters retrospectively collected from the last 71 conventional LF-MWA sessions. This group consisted of 56 patients (mean age, 60.3 ± 10.8 years). Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS. Technical success was 98.6% for both technologies; technical efficacy was 97.2% for HF spatial-energy-control MWA and 95.8% for LF-MWA. The 90-day mortality rate was 5.1% (3/59) in the HF spatial-energy-control MWA group and 5.4% (3/56) in the LF-MWA group; for both groups, there were zero intraprocedural deaths. The median ablation time was 8.0 minutes for HF spatial-energy-control MWA and 10.0 minutes for LF-MWA (p < 0.0001). Complications were recorded in 21.1% (15/71) of HF spatial-energy-control MWA sessions and in 31.0% (22/71) of LF-MWA sessions (p = 0.182); of these complications, 4.2% (3/71) were major complications in the HF spatial-energy-control MWA group, and 9.9% (7/71) were major complications in the LF-MWA group. The median deviation from ideal sphericity (1.0) was 0.195 in the HF spatial-energy-control MWA group versus 0.376 in the LF-MWA group (p < 0.0001). Absolute minimal ablative margins per ablation were 7.5 ± 3.6 mm (mean ± SD) in the HF spatial-energy-control MWA group versus 4.2 ± 3.0 mm in the LF-MWA group (p < 0.0001). In the HF spatial-energy-control MWA group, LTP at 12 months was 6.5% (4/62). LTP at 12 months in the LF-MWA group was 12.5% (7/56). Differences in LTP rate (p = 0.137) and time point (p = 0.833) were not significant. CONCLUSION. HF spatial-energy-control MWA technology and conventional LFMWA technology are safe and effective for the treatment of lung malignancies independent of the MWA system used. However, HF spatial-energy-control MWA as an HF and high-energy MWA technique achieves ablation zones that are closer to an ideal sphere and achieves larger ablative margins than LF-MWA (p < 0.0001).