Zhaonan Li1, Chaoyan Wang1, Guangyan Si2, Xueliang Zhou1, Yahua Li1, Jing Li1, Dechao Jiao3, Xinwei Han4. 1. Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No. 1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou City, 450000, Henan Province, China. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000, China. 3. Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No. 1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou City, 450000, Henan Province, China. jiaodechao007@126.com. 4. Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No. 1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou City, 450000, Henan Province, China. 13592583911@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given their widespread availability and relatively low cost, percutaneous thermal ablation is commonly performed under the guidance of computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (US). However, such imaging modalities may be restricted due to insufficient image contrast and limited tumor visibility, which results in imperfect intraoperative treatment or an increased risk of damage to critical anatomical structures. Currently, magnetic resonance (MR) guidance has been proven to be a possible solution to overcome the above shortcomings, as it provides more reliable visualization of the target tumor and allows for multiplanar capabilities, making it the modality of choice. Unfortunately, MR-guided ablation is limited to specialized centers, and the cost is relatively high. Is ablation therapy under MR guidance better than that under CT guidance? This study retrospectively compared the efficacy of CT-guided and MR-guided microwave ablation (MWA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC ≤ 5.0 cm). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 47 patients and 54 patients received MWA under the guidance of CT and MR, respectively. The inclusion criteria were a single HCC ≤ 5.0 cm or a maximum of three. The local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), prognostic factors for local progression, and safety of this technique were assessed. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful. The complication rates of the two groups were remarkably different with respect to incidences of liver abscess and pleural effusion (P < 0.05). The mean LTP was 44.264 months in the CT-guided group versus 47.745 months in the MR-guided group of HCC (P = 0.629, log-rank test). The mean OS was 56.772 months in the patients who underwent the CT-guided procedure versus 58.123 months in those who underwent the MR-guided procedure (P = 0.630, log-rank test). Multivariate Cox regression analysis further illustrated that tumor diameter (< 3 cm) and the number of lesions (single) were important factors affecting LTP and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Both CT-guided and MR-guided MWA are comparable therapies for the treatment of HCC (< 5 cm), and there was no difference in survival between the two groups. However, MR-guided MWA could reduce the incidence of complications.
BACKGROUND: Given their widespread availability and relatively low cost, percutaneous thermal ablation is commonly performed under the guidance of computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (US). However, such imaging modalities may be restricted due to insufficient image contrast and limited tumor visibility, which results in imperfect intraoperative treatment or an increased risk of damage to critical anatomical structures. Currently, magnetic resonance (MR) guidance has been proven to be a possible solution to overcome the above shortcomings, as it provides more reliable visualization of the target tumor and allows for multiplanar capabilities, making it the modality of choice. Unfortunately, MR-guided ablation is limited to specialized centers, and the cost is relatively high. Is ablation therapy under MR guidance better than that under CT guidance? This study retrospectively compared the efficacy of CT-guided and MR-guided microwave ablation (MWA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC ≤ 5.0 cm). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 47 patients and 54 patients received MWA under the guidance of CT and MR, respectively. The inclusion criteria were a single HCC ≤ 5.0 cm or a maximum of three. The local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), prognostic factors for local progression, and safety of this technique were assessed. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful. The complication rates of the two groups were remarkably different with respect to incidences of liver abscess and pleural effusion (P < 0.05). The mean LTP was 44.264 months in the CT-guided group versus 47.745 months in the MR-guided group of HCC (P = 0.629, log-rank test). The mean OS was 56.772 months in the patients who underwent the CT-guided procedure versus 58.123 months in those who underwent the MR-guided procedure (P = 0.630, log-rank test). Multivariate Cox regression analysis further illustrated that tumor diameter (< 3 cm) and the number of lesions (single) were important factors affecting LTP and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Both CT-guided and MR-guided MWA are comparable therapies for the treatment of HCC (< 5 cm), and there was no difference in survival between the two groups. However, MR-guided MWA could reduce the incidence of complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hepatocellular carcinoma; Interventional radiology; Magnetic resonance imaging; Microwave ablation
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: Francesco Izzo; Vincenza Granata; Roberto Grassi; Roberta Fusco; Raffaele Palaia; Paolo Delrio; Gianpaolo Carrafiello; Daniel Azoulay; Antonella Petrillo; Steven A Curley Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-06-19
Authors: Hee Ho Chu; Jin Hyoung Kim; Pyo Nyun Kim; So Yeon Kim; Young-Suk Lim; Seong Ho Park; Heung-Kyu Ko; Sung-Gyu Lee Journal: Liver Int Date: 2019-10-13 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Josep M Llovet; Rosalba Miceli; Sherrie Bhoori; Marcello Schiavo; Luigi Mariani; Tiziana Camerini; Sasan Roayaie; Myron E Schwartz; Gian Luca Grazi; René Adam; Peter Neuhaus; Mauro Salizzoni; Jordi Bruix; Alejandro Forner; Luciano De Carlis; Umberto Cillo; Andrew K Burroughs; Roberto Troisi; Massimo Rossi; Giorgio E Gerunda; Jan Lerut; Jacques Belghiti; Ilka Boin; Jean Gugenheim; Fedja Rochling; Bart Van Hoek; Pietro Majno Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Myeong Jun Song; Si Hyun Bae; June Sung Lee; Sung Won Lee; Do Seon Song; Chan Ran You; Jong Young Choi; Seung Kew Yoon Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 2.884