Clinical evaluation of in silico planning and real-time simulation of hepatic radiofrequency ablation (ClinicIMPPACT Trial).
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
/ pathology
Catheter Ablation
/ methods
Chemoembolization, Therapeutic
/ methods
Computer Simulation
Female
Humans
Liver
/ pathology
Liver Neoplasms
/ pathology
Male
Margins of Excision
Middle Aged
Patient Care Planning
Prospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Young Adult
Liver
Perfusion
Radiofrequency ablation
Software
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
04
07
2019
accepted:
07
08
2019
revised:
27
07
2019
pubmed:
1
9
2019
medline:
30
5
2020
entrez:
1
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the accuracy and clinical integrability of a comprehensive simulation tool to plan and predict radiofrequency ablation (RFA) zones in liver tumors. Forty-five patients with 51 malignant hepatic lesions of different origins were included in a prospective multicenter trial. Prior to CT-guided RFA, all patients underwent multiphase CT which included acquisitions for the assessment of liver perfusion. These data were used to generate a 3D model of the liver. The intra-procedural position of the RFA probe was determined by CT and semi-automatically registered to the 3D model. Size and shape of the simulated ablation zones were compared with those of the thermal ablation zones segmented in contrast-enhanced CT images 1 month after RFA; procedure time was compared with a historical control group. Simulated and segmented ablation zone volumes showed a significant correlation (ρ = 0.59, p < 0.0001) and no significant bias (Wilcoxon's Z = 0.68, p = 0.25). Representative measures of ablation zone comparison were as follows: average surface deviation (absolute average error, AAE) with 3.4 ± 1.7 mm, Dice similarity coefficient 0.62 ± 0.14, sensitivity 0.70 ± 0.21, and positive predictive value 0.66 ± 0. There was a moderate positive correlation between AAE and duration of the ablation (∆t; r = 0.37, p = 0.008). After adjustments for inter-individual differences in ∆t, liver perfusion, and prior transarterial chemoembolization procedures, ∆t was an independent predictor of AAE (ß = 0.03 mm/min, p = 0.01). Compared with a historical control group, the simulation added 3.5 ± 1.9 min to the procedure. The validated simulation tool showed acceptable speed and accuracy in predicting the size and shape of hepatic RFA ablation zones. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate to what extent this tool might improve patient outcomes. • More reliable, patient-specific intra-procedural estimation of the induced RFA ablation zones in the liver may lead to better planning of the safety margins around tumors. • Dedicated real-time simulation software to predict RFA-induced ablation zones in patients with liver malignancies has shown acceptable agreement with the follow-up results in a first prospective multicenter trial suggesting a randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate potential outcome benefit for patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31471752
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06411-5
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06411-5
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
934-942Subventions
Organisme : FP7 Health
ID : grant #610886; grant #600641
Références
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010 Feb;33(1):11-7
pubmed: 19924474
Biomed Eng Online. 2004 Aug 06;3(1):27
pubmed: 15298708
J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2014 Aug;4(Suppl 3):S104-11
pubmed: 25755601
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Sep;12(9):1543-1559
pubmed: 28097603
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015 Jul;34(7):1576-1589
pubmed: 30132760
Invest Radiol. 2015 Apr;50(4):188-94
pubmed: 25333306
Anticancer Res. 2011 May;31(5):1583-8
pubmed: 21617213
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Jan;12(1):59-68
pubmed: 27538836
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Sep;81(9):2075-9
pubmed: 21802233
Hepatology. 2005 Nov;42(5):1208-36
pubmed: 16250051
Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 15;8(1):787
pubmed: 29335429
Comput Biol Med. 2015 Feb;57:182-6
pubmed: 25575184
Radiology. 2014 Jan;270(1):107-16
pubmed: 23912621
Int J Hyperthermia. 2006 Jun;22(4):327-42
pubmed: 16754353
Radiology. 2014 Aug;272(2):322-44
pubmed: 25058132
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Aug 18;8:25-32
pubmed: 29696193
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016 Aug;23(8):508-16
pubmed: 27338856
J Hepatol. 2012 Apr;56(4):908-43
pubmed: 22424438
J Cancer Res Ther. 2016 Dec;12(Supplement):C153-C158
pubmed: 28230009
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Sep;21(9):3090-5
pubmed: 24788556
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Nov;45(17):2947-59
pubmed: 19773153
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Aug;84(8):1540-1545
pubmed: 25979193
Ann Surg. 2010 May;251(5):796-803
pubmed: 19858704
Anticancer Res. 2012 Mar;32(3):915-21
pubmed: 22399612
Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2679-2689
pubmed: 30560364
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 20;28(3):493-508
pubmed: 19841322
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2011 Nov 13;369(1954):4233-54
pubmed: 21969674
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):480-8
pubmed: 17242258
Ann Surg. 2005 Aug;242(2):158-71
pubmed: 16041205