Raluca-Maria Sandu1, Iwan Paolucci1, Simeon J S Ruiter2, Raphael Sznitman1, Koert P de Jong2, Jacob Freedman3, Stefan Weber1, Pascale Tinguely3,4. 1. ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 3. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In thermal ablation of liver tumors, complete coverage of the tumor volume by the ablation volume with a sufficient ablation margin is the most important factor for treatment success. Evaluation of ablation completeness is commonly performed by visual inspection in 2D and is prone to inter-reader variability. This work aimed to introduce a standardized approach for evaluation of ablation completeness after CT-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors, using volumetric quantitative ablation margins (QAM). METHODS: A QAM computation metric based on volumetric segmentations of tumor and ablation areas and signed Euclidean surface distance maps was developed, including a novel algorithm to address QAM computation in subcapsular tumors. The code for QAM computation was verified in artificial examples of tumor and ablation spheres simulating varying scenarios of ablation margins. The applicability of the QAM metric was investigated in representative cases extracted from a prospective database of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) treated with stereotactic microwave ablation (SMWA). RESULTS: Applicability of the proposed QAM metric was confirmed in artificial and clinical example cases. Numerical and visual options of data presentation displaying substrata of QAM distributions were proposed. For subcapsular tumors, the underestimation of tumor coverage by the ablation volume when applying an unadjusted QAM method was confirmed, supporting the benefits of using the proposed algorithm for QAM computation in these cases. The computational code for developed QAM was made publicly available, encouraging the use of a standard and objective metric in reporting ablation completeness and margins. CONCLUSION: The proposed volumetric approach for QAM computation including a novel algorithm to address subcapsular liver tumors enables precision and reproducibility in the assessment of ablation margins. The quantitative feedback on ablation completeness opens possibilities for intra-operative decision making and for refined analyses on predictability and consistency of local tumor control after thermal ablation of liver tumors.
BACKGROUND: In thermal ablation of liver tumors, complete coverage of the tumor volume by the ablation volume with a sufficient ablation margin is the most important factor for treatment success. Evaluation of ablation completeness is commonly performed by visual inspection in 2D and is prone to inter-reader variability. This work aimed to introduce a standardized approach for evaluation of ablation completeness after CT-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors, using volumetric quantitative ablation margins (QAM). METHODS: A QAM computation metric based on volumetric segmentations of tumor and ablation areas and signed Euclidean surface distance maps was developed, including a novel algorithm to address QAM computation in subcapsular tumors. The code for QAM computation was verified in artificial examples of tumor and ablation spheres simulating varying scenarios of ablation margins. The applicability of the QAM metric was investigated in representative cases extracted from a prospective database of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) treated with stereotactic microwave ablation (SMWA). RESULTS: Applicability of the proposed QAM metric was confirmed in artificial and clinical example cases. Numerical and visual options of data presentation displaying substrata of QAM distributions were proposed. For subcapsular tumors, the underestimation of tumor coverage by the ablation volume when applying an unadjusted QAM method was confirmed, supporting the benefits of using the proposed algorithm for QAM computation in these cases. The computational code for developed QAM was made publicly available, encouraging the use of a standard and objective metric in reporting ablation completeness and margins. CONCLUSION: The proposed volumetric approach for QAM computation including a novel algorithm to address subcapsular liver tumors enables precision and reproducibility in the assessment of ablation margins. The quantitative feedback on ablation completeness opens possibilities for intra-operative decision making and for refined analyses on predictability and consistency of local tumor control after thermal ablation of liver tumors.
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: 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: Timothy M Pawlik; Charles R Scoggins; Daria Zorzi; Eddie K Abdalla; Axel Andres; Cathy Eng; Steven A Curley; Evelyne M Loyer; Andrea Muratore; Gilles Mentha; Lorenzo Capussotti; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pascale Tinguely; Lorenz Frehner; Anja Lachenmayer; Vanessa Banz; Stefan Weber; Daniel Candinas; Martin H Maurer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Nikiforos Vasiniotis Kamarinos; Mithat Gonen; Vlasios Sotirchos; Elena Kaye; Elena N Petre; Stephen B Solomon; Joseph P Erinjeri; Etay Ziv; Assen Kirov; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2022 Impact factor: 3.753
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
Authors: Simeon J S Ruiter; Pascale Tinguely; Iwan Paolucci; Jennie Engstrand; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Robbert J de Haas; Koert P de Jong; Jacob Freedman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 6.244