Predictive Factors of Local Recurrence after Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Thermal Ablation.
colorectal cancer
liver metastases
local recurrence
microwave
radiofrequency
thermoablation
Journal
Journal of imaging
ISSN: 2313-433X
Titre abrégé: J Imaging
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101698819
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Mar 2023
10 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
09
01
2023
revised:
03
03
2023
accepted:
08
03
2023
medline:
29
3
2023
entrez:
28
3
2023
pubmed:
29
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Identify risk factors for local recurrence (LR) after radiofrequency (RFA) and microwave (MWA) thermoablations (TA) of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM). Uni- (Pearson's Chi Fifty-four patients were treated with TA for 177 CCLM (159 surgically, 18 percutaneously). LR rate was 17.5% of treated lesions. Univariate analyses by lesion showed factors associated with LR: sizes of the lesion (OR = 1.14), size of nearby vessel (OR = 1.27), treatment of a previous TA site LR (OR = 5.03), and non-ovoid TA site shape (OR = 4.25). Multivariate analyses showed that the size of the nearby vessel (OR = 1.17) and the lesion (OR = 1.09) remained significant risk factors of LR. The size of lesions to treat and vessel proximity are LR risk factors that need to be considered when making the decision of thermoablative treatments. TA of an LR on a previous TA site should be reserved to specific situations, as there is an important risk of another LR. An additional TA procedure can be discussed when TA site shape is non-ovoid on control imaging, given the risk of LR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Identify risk factors for local recurrence (LR) after radiofrequency (RFA) and microwave (MWA) thermoablations (TA) of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM).
METHODS
METHODS
Uni- (Pearson's Chi
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty-four patients were treated with TA for 177 CCLM (159 surgically, 18 percutaneously). LR rate was 17.5% of treated lesions. Univariate analyses by lesion showed factors associated with LR: sizes of the lesion (OR = 1.14), size of nearby vessel (OR = 1.27), treatment of a previous TA site LR (OR = 5.03), and non-ovoid TA site shape (OR = 4.25). Multivariate analyses showed that the size of the nearby vessel (OR = 1.17) and the lesion (OR = 1.09) remained significant risk factors of LR.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The size of lesions to treat and vessel proximity are LR risk factors that need to be considered when making the decision of thermoablative treatments. TA of an LR on a previous TA site should be reserved to specific situations, as there is an important risk of another LR. An additional TA procedure can be discussed when TA site shape is non-ovoid on control imaging, given the risk of LR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36976117
pii: jimaging9030066
doi: 10.3390/jimaging9030066
pmc: PMC10058972
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Rofo. 2017 Nov;189(11):1055-1066
pubmed: 28834968
Br J Surg. 2015 Jan;102(1):92-101
pubmed: 25451181
Invest Radiol. 2008 Apr;43(4):211-8
pubmed: 18340244
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Dec;21(13):4278-83
pubmed: 24889486
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Oct;15(10):2757-64
pubmed: 18618182
Int J Hyperthermia. 2022;39(1):682-687
pubmed: 35469520
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 15;11(1):8262
pubmed: 33859265
Comput Biol Med. 2015 Jul;62:277-92
pubmed: 25966922
Am J Surg. 1999 Apr;177(4):303-6
pubmed: 10326848
Radiology. 1997 Jan;202(1):195-203
pubmed: 8988211
Surg Endosc. 2007 Apr;21(4):613-8
pubmed: 17287917
Pathology. 2011 Dec;43(7):725-31
pubmed: 22027742
Int J Hyperthermia. 2022;39(1):829-834
pubmed: 35732289
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2020 Feb;9(1):49-58
pubmed: 32140478
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Nov;12(11):1967-72
pubmed: 18688683
Acad Radiol. 2022 Oct;29(10):e219-e227
pubmed: 35039220
World J Surg. 2020 May;44(5):1595-1603
pubmed: 31965277
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018 Aug;41(8):1189-1204
pubmed: 29666906
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Oct;14(10):1267-74
pubmed: 14551273
N Z Med J. 2002 Aug 09;115(1159):U128
pubmed: 12362172
Radiol Artif Intell. 2019 Mar 13;1(2):180014
pubmed: 33937787
Surgery. 2018 Apr;163(4):709-713
pubmed: 29273176
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Aug 18;8:25-32
pubmed: 29696193
Biomedicines. 2021 Aug 05;9(8):
pubmed: 34440165
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jan;17(1):171-8
pubmed: 19707829
Cureus. 2019 Jun 25;11(6):e4994
pubmed: 31497425
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Sep;18(3):159-69
pubmed: 26365546
Ann Surg. 2015 Nov;262(5):772-8; discussion 778-9
pubmed: 26583665
BMC Cancer. 2018 Aug 15;18(1):821
pubmed: 30111304
J Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar;107(4):324-8
pubmed: 22996143
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):601-11
pubmed: 26267832
Visc Med. 2017 Mar;33(1):62-68
pubmed: 28612019
Cancer J. 2006 Jul-Aug;12(4):318-26
pubmed: 16925977
Oncotarget. 2017 Aug 2;8(39):66117-66127
pubmed: 29029497
Ann Surg. 2014 Jun;259(6):1195-200
pubmed: 24096760
Am J Surg. 2014 Aug;208(2):284-94
pubmed: 24970652
Surg Endosc. 2020 Jan;34(1):249-256
pubmed: 30945061
Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 07;11:689509
pubmed: 35070948
Ann Surg. 2004 Apr;239(4):441-9
pubmed: 15024304
Front Oncol. 2022 Sep 01;12:943176
pubmed: 36119531
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Dec;175(6):1619-25
pubmed: 11090390
J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Apr;17(4):719-29
pubmed: 23404173
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 20;28(3):493-508
pubmed: 19841322
Radiology. 2001 Oct;221(1):159-66
pubmed: 11568334
Comput Biol Med. 2020 May;120:103751
pubmed: 32421652
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 1;109(9):
pubmed: 28376151
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;115(7):830-834
pubmed: 28320045
Surgery. 2002 Oct;132(4):605-11; discussion 611-2
pubmed: 12407343
Ann Surg. 2005 Aug;242(2):158-71
pubmed: 16041205
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2006 Apr;391(2):118-23
pubmed: 16604376
Comput Biol Med. 2022 Jun;145:105506
pubmed: 35429832
Br J Surg. 2015 Jan;102(1):85-91
pubmed: 25296639