Prediction of Ablation Volume in Percutaneous Lung Microwave Ablation: A Single Centre Retrospective Study.
lung ablation
lung cancer treatment
microwave ablation
prediction software
Journal
Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
ISSN: 2379-139X
Titre abrégé: Tomography
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101671170
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 09 2022
30 09 2022
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
revised:
22
09
2022
accepted:
27
09
2022
entrez:
26
10
2022
pubmed:
27
10
2022
medline:
29
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Percutaneous Microwave Ablation (MWA) of lung malignancies is a procedure with many technical challenges, among them the risk of residual disease. Recently, dedicated software able to predict the volume of the ablated area was introduced. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the imaging guidance of choice for pulmonary ablation in our institution. The volumetric prediction software (VPS) has been installed and used in combination with CBCT to check the correct position of the device. Our study aimed to compare the results of MWA of pulmonary tumours performed using CBCT with and without VPS. We retrospectively reviewed 1-month follow-up enhanced contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scans of 10 patients who underwent ablation with the assistance of VPS (group 1) and of 10 patients who were treated without the assistance of VPS (group 2). All patients were treated for curative purposes, the maximum axial diameter of lesions ranged between 5 and 22 mm in group 1 and between 5 and 25 mm in group 2. We compared the presence of residual disease between the two groups. In group 1 residual disease was seen in only 1 patient (10%) in which VPS had ensured complete coverage of the tumour. In group 2 residual disease was found in 3 patients (30%). Using this software during MWA of lung malignancies could improve the efficacy of the treatment compared to the conventional only CBCT guidance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous Microwave Ablation (MWA) of lung malignancies is a procedure with many technical challenges, among them the risk of residual disease. Recently, dedicated software able to predict the volume of the ablated area was introduced. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the imaging guidance of choice for pulmonary ablation in our institution. The volumetric prediction software (VPS) has been installed and used in combination with CBCT to check the correct position of the device. Our study aimed to compare the results of MWA of pulmonary tumours performed using CBCT with and without VPS.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 1-month follow-up enhanced contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scans of 10 patients who underwent ablation with the assistance of VPS (group 1) and of 10 patients who were treated without the assistance of VPS (group 2). All patients were treated for curative purposes, the maximum axial diameter of lesions ranged between 5 and 22 mm in group 1 and between 5 and 25 mm in group 2. We compared the presence of residual disease between the two groups.
RESULTS
In group 1 residual disease was seen in only 1 patient (10%) in which VPS had ensured complete coverage of the tumour. In group 2 residual disease was found in 3 patients (30%).
CONCLUSIONS
Using this software during MWA of lung malignancies could improve the efficacy of the treatment compared to the conventional only CBCT guidance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36287805
pii: tomography8050206
doi: 10.3390/tomography8050206
pmc: PMC9607488
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2475-2485Références
Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2019 Sep;31(3):303-313
pubmed: 31351552
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Feb;81(2):395-9
pubmed: 21310562
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 Apr;27(4):474-9
pubmed: 26944360
Med Phys. 2021 Jul;48(7):3991-4003
pubmed: 33964020
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Jul;20(7 Suppl):S189-91
pubmed: 19559998
Tomography. 2022 Mar 01;8(2):617-626
pubmed: 35314628
Ann Thorac Surg. 2007 Jul;84(1):324-38
pubmed: 17588454
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Sep;14(9 Pt 2):S199-202
pubmed: 14514818
Radiology. 2008 Jun;247(3):871-9
pubmed: 18372457
Radiology. 2011 Sep;260(3):633-55
pubmed: 21846760
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010 Jan;21(1):122-9
pubmed: 19939704
J Thorac Dis. 2022 Apr;14(4):939-951
pubmed: 35572874
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017 Sep;98(9):583-588
pubmed: 28818346
Int J Hyperthermia. 2018 Jun;34(4):492-500
pubmed: 28774210
Med Oncol. 2017 May;34(5):96
pubmed: 28417355
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Eur Radiol. 2019 Aug;29(8):4026-4035
pubmed: 30506218
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 Jun;44(6):952-958
pubmed: 33462682
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020 May;43(5):667-683
pubmed: 32095842
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Rofo. 2017 Sep;189(9):828-843
pubmed: 28511267
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Dec;100(12):781-791
pubmed: 31402333
Acad Radiol. 2022 Oct;29(10):e219-e227
pubmed: 35039220
Radiology. 2011 Nov;261(2):643-51
pubmed: 22012906
J Thorac Dis. 2021 Dec;13(12):6827-6837
pubmed: 35070367
Lung Cancer. 2019 Dec;138:6-12
pubmed: 31593894
Clin Radiol. 2021 Nov;76(11):864.e13-864.e23
pubmed: 34420686
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019 Mar;22(1):21-25
pubmed: 30765071
Int J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr;10(2):81-5
pubmed: 15864692
Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 Apr;73(4):1082-7
pubmed: 11996245
Acta Radiol. 2016 Feb;57(2):188-96
pubmed: 25824206