Leigh C Casadaban1,2, Paul J Catalano2,3, Leslie K Lee1,2, Hyewon Hyun1,2, Kemal Tuncali1,2, Victor H Gerbaudo1,2, Paul B Shyn4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. pshyn@bwh.harvard.edu. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. pshyn@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To retrospectively assess liver tumor ablation margins using intraprocedural PET/CT images from FDG PET/CT-guided microwave or cryoablation procedures and to correlate minimum margin measurements with local progression outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-six patients (ages 36 to 85, median 62; 32 females) with 77 FDG-avid liver tumors underwent 60 FDG PET/CT guided, percutaneous microwave, or cryoablation procedures. Single breath-hold PET/CT images were used for intraprocedural assessment of the tumor ablation margin: liver tumors remained visible on PET immediately following ablation; microwave ablation zones were visible using contrast-enhanced CT; cryoablation zones (ice balls) were visible using unenhanced CT. Two readers retrospectively determined ablation margin assessability and measured the minimum ablation margin on intraprocedural PET/CT (n = 77) and postprocedural MRI (n = 56). Local tumor progression was assessed on all available follow-up imaging (1-49 months, mean 15). Local tumor progression was correlated with PET/CT minimum margin measurements using clustered survival models for 61 tumors. RESULTS: Minimum ablation margins were more often assessable using intraprocedural PET/CT (≥ 73/77 tumors, 95%) than postprocedural MRI (≤ 35/56 tumors, 63%). In 61 tumors with PET/CT-assessable margins (excluding tumors with overlapping ablations after PET/CT), there was a 6-fold increased risk of local tumor progression [hazard ratio (HR) 6.05; P = 0.004] for minimum ablation margins < 5 mm. CONCLUSION: Breath-hold PET/CT scans, during PET/CT-guided microwave or cryoablation procedures for FDG-avid liver tumors, enable reliable intraprocedural assessment of the entire tumor ablation margin; a minimum PET/CT ablation margin threshold of 5 mm correlates well with local tumor progression outcomes.
BACKGROUND: To retrospectively assess liver tumor ablation margins using intraprocedural PET/CT images from FDG PET/CT-guided microwave or cryoablation procedures and to correlate minimum margin measurements with local progression outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-six patients (ages 36 to 85, median 62; 32 females) with 77 FDG-avid liver tumors underwent 60 FDG PET/CT guided, percutaneous microwave, or cryoablation procedures. Single breath-hold PET/CT images were used for intraprocedural assessment of the tumor ablation margin: liver tumors remained visible on PET immediately following ablation; microwave ablation zones were visible using contrast-enhanced CT; cryoablation zones (ice balls) were visible using unenhanced CT. Two readers retrospectively determined ablation margin assessability and measured the minimum ablation margin on intraprocedural PET/CT (n = 77) and postprocedural MRI (n = 56). Local tumor progression was assessed on all available follow-up imaging (1-49 months, mean 15). Local tumor progression was correlated with PET/CT minimum margin measurements using clustered survival models for 61 tumors. RESULTS: Minimum ablation margins were more often assessable using intraprocedural PET/CT (≥ 73/77 tumors, 95%) than postprocedural MRI (≤ 35/56 tumors, 63%). In 61 tumors with PET/CT-assessable margins (excluding tumors with overlapping ablations after PET/CT), there was a 6-fold increased risk of local tumor progression [hazard ratio (HR) 6.05; P = 0.004] for minimum ablation margins < 5 mm. CONCLUSION: Breath-hold PET/CT scans, during PET/CT-guided microwave or cryoablation procedures for FDG-avid liver tumors, enable reliable intraprocedural assessment of the entire tumor ablation margin; a minimum PET/CT ablation margin threshold of 5 mm correlates well with local tumor progression outcomes.
Authors: Xiaodong Wang; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Joseph P Erinjeri; Elena N Petre; Mithat Gonen; Kinh G Do; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; Lynn A Brody; William Alago; Raymond H Thornton; Nancy E Kemeny; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Christof M Sommer; Steffen A Sommer; Theresa Mokry; Theresa Gockner; Daniel Gnutzmann; Nadine Bellemann; Anne Schmitz; Boris A Radeleff; Hans U Kauczor; Ulrike Stampfl; Philippe L Pereira Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Jorge A Marrero; Laura M Kulik; Claude B Sirlin; Andrew X Zhu; Richard S Finn; Michael M Abecassis; Lewis R Roberts; Julie K Heimbach Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Vlasios S Sotirchos; Lydia M Petrovic; Mithat Gönen; David S Klimstra; Richard K G Do; Elena N Petre; Alessandra R Garcia; Afsar Barlas; Joseph P Erinjeri; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Lynn A Brody; Ronald P DeMatteo; Nancy E Kemeny; Stephen B Solomon; Katia O Manova-Todorova; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Radiology Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nisha I Sainani; Paul B Shyn; Servet Tatli; Paul R Morrison; Kemal Tuncali; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Kyung Ho Kim; Yong Sik Yoon; Chang Sik Yu; Tae Won Kim; Hye Jin Kim; Pyo Nyun Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: J Korean Surg Soc Date: 2011-07-11
Authors: Martijn R Meijerink; Robbert S Puijk; Aukje A J M van Tilborg; Kirsten Holdt Henningsen; Llenalia Garcia Fernandez; Mattias Neyt; Juanita Heymans; Jacqueline S Frankema; Koert P de Jong; Dick J Richel; Warner Prevoo; Joan Vlayen Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Nikiforos Vasiniotis Kamarinos; Efsevia Vakiani; Sho Fujisawa; Mithat Gonen; Ning Fan; Yevgeniy Romin; Richard K G Do; Etay Ziv; Joseph P Erinjeri; Elena N Petre; Vlasios S Sotirchos; Juan C Camacho; Stephen B Solomon; Katia Manova-Todorova; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.682
Authors: Nikiforos Vasiniotis Kamarinos; Efsevia Vakiani; Mithat Gonen; Nancy E Kemeny; Carlie Sigel; Leonard B Saltz; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; Joseph P Erinjeri; Lynn A Brody; Etay Ziv; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Henry Kunin; Afsar Barlas; Elena N Petre; Peter T Kingham; Michael I D'Angelica; Katia Manova-Todorova; Stephen B Solomon; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 6.639