| Literature DB >> 35898840 |
Gemma Rossi1, Maria Chiara Petrone1, Marco Schiavo Lena2, Luca Albarello2, Diego Palumbo3, Sabrina Gloria Giulia Testoni1, Livia Archibugi1, Matteo Tacelli1, Piera Zaccari1, Giuseppe Vanella1, Laura Apadula1, Stefano Crippa4, Giulio Belfiori4, Michele Reni5, Massimo Falconi4, Claudio Doglioni2, Francesco De Cobelli3, Andrew J Healey6, Gabriele Capurso1, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono1.
Abstract
Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound (US)-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been investigated for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) but studies are limited and heterogeneous. Computed tomography (CT) scan features may predict RFA response after chemotherapy but their role is unexplored. The primary aim was to investigate the efficacy of ex-vivo application of a dedicated RFA system at three power on surgically resected PDAC in patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The secondary aim was to explore the association between pre-treatment CT-based quantitative features and RFA response.Entities:
Keywords: endoscopic ultrasound; ex‐vivo; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; pancreatic adenocarcinoma; radiofrequency ablation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35898840 PMCID: PMC9307734 DOI: 10.1002/deo2.152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: DEN open ISSN: 2692-4609
Clinical and pathology features of the 15 patients whose pancreatic specimens were randomized to three different ablation power
| Ablation power | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 W | 30 W | 10 W | Total |
| |
|
| |||||
| Patients ( | 5 | 5 | 5 | 15 | – |
| Male sex | 3 (60%) | 2 (40%) (20%) | 3 (60%) | 8 (53%) | 0.99 |
| Mean age (± SD) | 62 (±15) | 66 (±13) | 61 (±7) | 63 (±11) | 0.4 |
| Head resection | 3 (60%) | 4 (80%) | 4 (80%) | 11 (73%) | 0.2 |
| Mean (± SD) tumor size at pathology (mm) | 27 (±7) | 26 (±4) | 40 (±13) | 31 (±11) | 0.04 |
| Hartmann grade 2 | 2 (40%) | 3 (60%) | 1 (20%) | 6 (40%) | 0.4 |
| Tumor grade | 0.99 | ||||
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | |
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | |
| TNM stage | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 | |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (m‐FOLFIRINOX) | 1 (20%) | 3 (60%) | 3 (60%) | 7 (47%) | 0.4 |
| Median (IQR) CA 19‐9 before surgery | 28 (20–51) | 105 (17–159) | 63 (28–279) | 48 (18–75) | 0.5 |
| Biliary metal stent in place at time of RFA | 2 (40%) | 3 (60%) | 2 (40%) | 7 (47%) | 0.1 |
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TNM, TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors.
FIGURE 1Necrosis size obtained with three different ablation powers applied on the lesions (not statistically significant mean values of necrosis at different ablation powers are reported)
FIGURE 2Ultrasound appearance of ablated lesions. (a) Ultrasound image during the radiofrequency ablation procedure with needle inside the lesion and hyperechoic bubbles around it as an effect. (b) Ultrasound image of the ablated area (size 15.8 × 8.9 mm2) inside the hypoechoic lesion represented by hyperechoic bubbles
FIGURE 3Gross pictures of a pancreaticoduodenectomy specimen after the axial cut. (a, b) The asterisk indicates the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) needle insertion points. The needle track is clearly recognizable on a histological level, both in (c) orthogonal (asterisk) and (d–f) parallel sections
FIGURE 4(a) The “hole” left by the needle track is in the middle of the picture (asterisk); there is an area of tissue damage around it. (b, c) Air bubbles were created by the rapid increase of temperature at higher powers and they appeared as a ring around the area of tissue damage. (d) A neoplastic gland with procedure‐induced cytological damage. The elongation of the nuclei is evident. (e, f) Neoplastic necrosis within the tissue damage area induced by the procedure
Computed tomography scan features of the 15 samples according to the three different power settings
| Ablation power | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 W | 30 W | 10 W | Total |
| |
| Radiological features | |||||
| Mean basal HU | 31 (20–42) | 32 (17–48) | 35 (29–41) | 33 (29–37) | 0.7 |
| Portal phase HU | 76 (60–93) | 70 (26–114) | 84 (65–103) | 77 (64–89) | 0.6 |
| Late phase HU | 96 (65–127) | 86 (30–141) | 94 (77–112) | 91 (74–108) | 0.9 |
| Necrosis (portal‐basal) | 44 (26–63) | 40 (−13–93) | 49 (33–65) | 45 (33–57) | 0.8 |
| Fibrosis (late‐basal) | 64 (38–90) | 58 (−8–123) | 61 (42–79) | 61 (45–76) | 0.9 |
| EUS features before RFA | |||||
| Mean long axis (mm) | 24 (22–27) | 26 (17–35) | 32 (28–35) | 27 (24–30) | 0.06 |
Abbreviations: EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; HU, Hounsfield unit; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with a good response to radiofrequency ablation, defined as a necrosis area >4 mm
| Factor | Necrosis area ≤ 4 mm ( | Necrosis area > 4 mm ( | OR (95% CI); |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age | 61 (±14) | 65.5 (±7) | 1.04 (0.94–1.15); 0.41 |
| Male sex | 5 (62%) | 3 (43%) | 0.75 (0.09–5.7); 0.72 |
| Mean tumor size at pathology | 29 (±10) | 31 (±11) | 1.02 (0.92–1.12); 0.65 |
| Hartmann grade 2 | 2 (25%) | 4 (57%) | 0.25 (0.02–2.23); 0.21 |
| Mean CA 19‐9 | 65 (±79) | 114 (±208) | 1.00 (0.99–1.00); 0.44 |
| Gemcitabine‐based chemo | 5 (62%) | 3 (43%) | 0.45 (0.05–3.5); 0.44 |
| Median pre‐treatment necrosis at CT scan (portal‐basal δHU) | 42.1 (IQR 27.3–65) | 47.3 (IQR 41.3–56.8) | 1.00 (0.95–1.06); 0.78 |
| Median pre‐treatment fibrosis at CT scan (late‐basal δHU) | 61.8 (IQR 39.7–76) | 67.2 (IQR 49.3–76.2) | 1.01 (0.96–1.06); 0.70 |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; HU, Hounsfield unit.