| Literature DB >> 33388803 |
Hsin-Chih Huang1, L B Gatchalian1, Yi-Chung Hsieh1, Wei-Ting Chen1, Chen-Chun Lin1, Shi-Ming Lin2,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the primary technique effectiveness (PTE), to compare the complete response and local recurrence rates between conspicuous and inconspicuous tumors using single and switching electrodes of real-time virtual sonography (RVS)-assisted radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in conspicuous and inconspicuous hepatic tumors under conventional ultrasonography (US). SUBJECTS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Inconspicuous tumor; Liver metastasis; Radiofrequency ablation; Real-time virtual sonography
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33388803 PMCID: PMC8205891 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02875-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY)
Demographics of patients and tumors
| Variables | HCC group | Liver metastasis group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 196 | 23 | – |
| Male | 127 | 18 | 0.173 |
| Female | 69 | 5 | |
| Age (y.o.) | |||
| Mean + / − SD | 65.2 + / − 11.3 | 59 + / − 15.6 | |
| Range | 10 – 90 | 7 – 83 | |
| Tumor Size(cm) + / − SD(range) | 2.18 + / − 0.8725 | 2.24 + / − 0.9595 | 0.6778 |
| Complete response of tumor (CT or MRI) | 249/272 (92%) | 39/43 (91%) | 0.1462 |
p value of < 0.10 was statistically significant
Fig. 2The images above show the tumor visibility under ultrasound and under RVS. a Conspicuous S4 tumor with visible margin and echogenicity b Inconspicuous S8 tumor without visible margin c Inconspicuous S8 tumor without visible margin, beside middle hepatic vein
Fig. 3Distribution of Cirrhotic and Non-cirrhotic Patients
Fig. 4Etiologies of liver disease in HCC group
Fig. 5Distribution of Primary Malignancy with Hepatic Metastasis
Primary Technique Effectiveness of RVS-assisted RFA
| Conspicuous | Inconspicuous | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (cm) mean + / − SD | 2.32 + / − 0.8618 | 1.54 + / − 0.6826 | ||
| Primary technique effectiveness | 245 (94%) | 43 (80%) | 0.9993 | |
| With landmark | Without landmark | 0.549 | ||
| 7 (88%) | 36 (78%) | |||
p value of < 0.10 was statistically significant
Complete response per RFA session
| RFA session | Complete response | Non-complete response |
|---|---|---|
| 1st RFA | ||
| Conspicuous | 245 (94%) | 16 (6%) |
| Inconspicuos | ||
| With landmark | 7 (88%) | 1 (12%) |
| Without landmark | 36 (78%) | 10 (22%) |
| 2nd RFA | ||
| Conspicuous | 6 (75%) | 2 (25%) |
| Inconspicuous | ||
| With landmark | 0 | 1 (100%) |
| Without landmark | 6 (100%) | 0 |
| 3rd RFA | ||
| Conspicuous | 2(100%) | 0 |
| Inconspicuous | NA | NA |
Complete response and local recurrence rate in conspicuous tumors with use of single and multiple electrodes with switch
| Electrode type | HCC | Liver metastasis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete response | LR rate | Complete response | LR rate | |||||
| Single | 191/204 (94%) | 0.1912 | 27/191 (14%) | 0.1557 | 29/31 (94%) | 0.4776 | 7/29 (24%) | 0.7982 |
| Multiple electrode with Switch | 19/20 (95%) | 3/19 (16%) | 6/6 (100%) | 3/6 (50%) | ||||
Complete response and Local recurrence rate in inconspicuous tumors with use of single and multiple electrodes with switch
| Electrode type | HCC | Liver Metastasis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landmark | Without landmark | Landmark N = 2 | Without landmark | |||||
| Complete response | Local recurrence rate | Complete response | Local recurrence Rate | Complete response | Local recurrence rate | Complete response | Local recurrence rate | |
| Single | 6/6 (100%) | 1/6 (17%) | 31/40 (78%) | 1/31 (3%) | 1/ 2 (50%) | 0 | 3/ 4 (75%) | 0 |
| Multiple electrodes with Switch | None | NA | 2/2 (100%) | 0 | None | NA | None | NA |
Complete response and local recurrence rate by HCC size
| Size | Total N = 272 | Complete response | p value | Local recurrence rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 2 cm | 125 | 116/125 (93%) | 0.8374 | 10/116 (9%) | 0.1855 |
| 2 – 2.9 cm | 93 | 88/93 (95%) | 13/88 (15%) | ||
| 3 – 4.9 cm | 54 | 50/54 (93%) | 9/50 (18%) |
Fig. 6Cumulative local recurrence in Conspicuous and Inconspicuous HCC
Fig. 1Flow diagram
Fig. 7Cumulative local recurrence in Conspicuous and Inconspicuous Liver Metastasis
Logistic Regression on Likelihood of Local Recurrence for HCC
| B | S.E | Wald | df | Exp(B) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (cm) | .391 | .183 | 4.564 | 1 | .033 | 1.479 |
| Constant | − 2.880 | .485 | 35.240 | 1 | .000 | .051 |
Logistic regression on likelihood of non-complete response
| B | SE | Wald | Df | Exp (B) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | − 1.961 | 0.603 | − 3.252 | 1 | 0.001 | 14% |
| High-risk location | − 0.5222 | 0.4217 | − 1.238 | 1 | 0.21563 | 59% |
| Size | − 0.1757 | 0.2305 | − 0.762 | 1 | 0.44586 | 84% |