Identification of A0 minimum ablative margins for colorectal liver metastases: multicentre, retrospective study using deformable CT registration and artificial intelligence-based autosegmentation.
Journal
The British journal of surgery
ISSN: 1365-2168
Titre abrégé: Br J Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2024
30 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
23
02
2024
revised:
15
05
2024
accepted:
17
06
2024
pmc-release:
30
08
2025
medline:
1
9
2024
pubmed:
1
9
2024
entrez:
30
8
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several ablation confirmation software methods for minimum ablative margin assessment have recently been developed to improve local outcomes for patients undergoing thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Previous assessments were limited to single institutions mostly at the place of development. The aim of this study was to validate the previously identified 5 mm minimum ablative margin (A0) using autosegmentation and biomechanical deformable image registration in a multi-institutional setting. This was a multicentre, retrospective study including patients with colorectal liver metastases undergoing CT- or ultrasound-guided microwave or radiofrequency ablation during 2009-2022, reporting 3-year local disease progression (residual unablated tumour or local tumour progression) rates by minimum ablative margin across all institutions and identifying an intraprocedural contrast-enhanced CT-based minimum ablative margin associated with a 3-year local disease progression rate of less than 1%. A total of 400 ablated colorectal liver metastases (median diameter of 1.5 cm) in 243 patients (145 men; median age of 62 [interquartile range 54-70] years) were evaluated, with a median follow-up of 26 (interquartile range 17-40) months. A total of 119 (48.9%) patients with 186 (46.5%) colorectal liver metastases were from international institutions B, C, and D that were not involved in the software development. Three-year local disease progression rates for 0 mm, >0 and <5 mm, and 5 mm or larger minimum ablative margins were 79%, 15%, and 0% respectively for institution A (where the software was developed) and 34%, 19%, and 2% respectively for institutions B, C, and D combined. Local disease progression risk decreased to less than 1% with an intraprocedurally confirmed minimum ablative margin greater than 4.6 mm. A minimum ablative margin of 5 mm or larger demonstrates optimal local oncological outcomes. It is proposed that an intraprocedural minimum ablative margin of 5 mm or larger, confirmed using biomechanical deformable image registration, serves as the A0 for colorectal liver metastasis thermal ablation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several ablation confirmation software methods for minimum ablative margin assessment have recently been developed to improve local outcomes for patients undergoing thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Previous assessments were limited to single institutions mostly at the place of development. The aim of this study was to validate the previously identified 5 mm minimum ablative margin (A0) using autosegmentation and biomechanical deformable image registration in a multi-institutional setting.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a multicentre, retrospective study including patients with colorectal liver metastases undergoing CT- or ultrasound-guided microwave or radiofrequency ablation during 2009-2022, reporting 3-year local disease progression (residual unablated tumour or local tumour progression) rates by minimum ablative margin across all institutions and identifying an intraprocedural contrast-enhanced CT-based minimum ablative margin associated with a 3-year local disease progression rate of less than 1%.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 400 ablated colorectal liver metastases (median diameter of 1.5 cm) in 243 patients (145 men; median age of 62 [interquartile range 54-70] years) were evaluated, with a median follow-up of 26 (interquartile range 17-40) months. A total of 119 (48.9%) patients with 186 (46.5%) colorectal liver metastases were from international institutions B, C, and D that were not involved in the software development. Three-year local disease progression rates for 0 mm, >0 and <5 mm, and 5 mm or larger minimum ablative margins were 79%, 15%, and 0% respectively for institution A (where the software was developed) and 34%, 19%, and 2% respectively for institutions B, C, and D combined. Local disease progression risk decreased to less than 1% with an intraprocedurally confirmed minimum ablative margin greater than 4.6 mm.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A minimum ablative margin of 5 mm or larger demonstrates optimal local oncological outcomes. It is proposed that an intraprocedural minimum ablative margin of 5 mm or larger, confirmed using biomechanical deformable image registration, serves as the A0 for colorectal liver metastasis thermal ablation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39213397
pii: 7745997
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae165
pmc: PMC11364140
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Proper Homines Stiftung
Organisme : Swiss National Science Foundation
ID : P2BEP3_195444
Pays : Switzerland
Organisme : Liechtenstein
Organisme : University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Organisme : Vaduz
Organisme : Apache Corporation Grant
Organisme : NIH HHS
Pays : United States
Organisme : GFI
ID : CALM_GFI_22_01_F
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01CA235564
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Med Phys. 2021 Oct;48(10):6226-6236
pubmed: 34342018
Int J Hyperthermia. 2022;39(1):880-887
pubmed: 35848428
Front Oncol. 2022 Aug 11;12:886517
pubmed: 36033508
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2022 Dec;45(12):1860-1867
pubmed: 36058995
BMC Cancer. 2018 Aug 15;18(1):821
pubmed: 30111304
Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):601-11
pubmed: 26267832
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2727-2734
pubmed: 29417253
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014 Nov;25(11):1691-705.e4
pubmed: 25442132
Radiology. 2023 Apr;307(2):e221373
pubmed: 36719291
Radiology. 2021 Dec;301(3):533-540
pubmed: 34581627
Eur Radiol. 2021 Sep;31(9):6489-6499
pubmed: 33447860
Int J Hyperthermia. 2020 Nov 30;37(1):1362-1367
pubmed: 33302747
Eur J Cancer. 2023 Jul;187:65-76
pubmed: 37119639
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Invest Radiol. 2024 Apr 1;59(4):314-319
pubmed: 37812469
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2021 Jun;20(2):e82-e95
pubmed: 33246789
Br J Cancer. 2023 Jan;128(1):130-136
pubmed: 36319850
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023 Dec;46(12):1748-1754
pubmed: 37563313
Front Oncol. 2021 Nov 15;11:757167
pubmed: 34868968
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1500-24
pubmed: 25046751
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2024 Apr;35(4):523-532.e1
pubmed: 38215818
Ann Oncol. 2023 Jan;34(1):10-32
pubmed: 36307056
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018 Feb;29(2):268-275.e1
pubmed: 29203394
Eur J Radiol. 2022 Nov;156:110552
pubmed: 36228455
Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2698-2705
pubmed: 30402706
Int J Hyperthermia. 2019;36(1):337-343
pubmed: 30729818