Immunofluorescence Assay of Ablated Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Frozen Section of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation?

Predictive nomograms of repeat intrahepatic recurrence and overall survival after radiofrequency ablation of recurrent colorectal liver metastases

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to develop nomograms for predicting repeat intrahepatic recurrence (rIHR) and overall survival (OS), after radiofrequency ablation (RFA), treatment in patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) after hepatectomy based on clinicopathologic features.

METHODS

A total of 160 consecutive patients with recurrent CLMs after hepatectomy who were treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous RFA from 2012 to 2022 were retrospectively included. Patients were randomly divided into a training cohort and a validation cohort, with a ratio of 8:2. Potential prognostic factors associated with rIHR and OS, after RFA, were identified by using the competing-risks and Cox proportional hazard models, respectively, and were used to construct the nomogram. The nomogram was evaluated by Harrell's C-index and a calibration curve.

RESULTS

The 1-, 2-, and 3-year rIHR rates after RFA were 58.8%, 70.2%, and 74.2%, respectively. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates were 96.3%, 60.4%, and 38.5%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, mutant RAS, interval from hepatectomy to intrahepatic recurrence ≤ 12 months, CEA level >5 ng/ml, and ablation margin <5 mm were the independent predictive factors for rIHR. Mutant RAS, largest CLM at hepatectomy >3 cm, CEA level >5 ng/ml, and extrahepatic disease were independent predictors of poor OS. Two nomograms for rIHR and OS were constructed using the respective significant variables. In both cohorts, the nomogram demonstrated good discrimination and calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

The established nomograms can predict individual risk of rIHR and OS after RFA for recurrent CLMs and contribute to improving individualized management.

Tumor and Ablation Margin Visibility during Cryoablation of Musculoskeletal Tumors: Comparing Intraprocedural PET/CT Images with CT-Only Images

PURPOSE

To compare tumor and ice-ball margin visibility on intraprocedural positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and CT-only images and report technical success, local tumor progression, and adverse event rates for PET/CT-guided cryoablation procedures for musculoskeletal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated 20 PET/CT-guided cryoablation procedures performed with palliative and/or curative intent to treat 15 musculoskeletal tumors in 15 patients from 2012 to 2021. Cryoablation was performed using general anesthesia and PET/CT guidance. Procedural images were reviewed to determine the following: (a) whether the tumor borders could be fully assessed on PET/CT or CT-only images; and (b) whether tumor ice-ball margins could be fully assessed on PET/CT or CT-only images. The ability to visualize tumor borders and ice-ball margins on PET/CT images was compared with that on CT-only images.

RESULTS

Tumor borders were fully assessable for 100% (20 of 20; 95% CI, 0.83-1) of procedures on PET/CT versus 20% (4 of 20; 95 CI, 0.057-0.44) of procedures on CT only (P < .001). The tumor ice-ball margin was fully assessable in 80% (16 of 20; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94) of procedures using PET/CT versus 5% (1 of 20; 95% CI, 0.0013-0.25) of procedures using CT only (P < .001). Primary technical success was achieved in 75% (15 of 20; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) of procedures. There was local tumor progression in 23% (3/13; 95% CI, 0.050-0.54) of the treated tumors with at least 6 months of follow-up. There were 3 adverse events (1 Grade 3, 1 Grade 2, and 1 Grade 1).

CONCLUSIONS

PET/CT-guided cryoablation of musculoskeletal tumors can provide superior intraprocedural visualization of the tumor and ice-ball margins compared with that provided by CT alone. Further studies are warranted to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach.

Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Genomics and Biomarkers with Focus on Local Therapies

Molecular cancer biomarkers help personalize treatment, predict oncologic outcomes, and identify patients who can benefit from specific targeted therapies. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third-most common cancer, with the liver being the most frequent visceral metastatic site. KRAS, NRAS, BRAF V600E Mutations, DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency/Microsatellite Instability Status, HER2 Amplification, and NTRK Fusions are NCCN approved and actionable molecular biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Additional biomarkers are also described and can be helpful in different image-guided hepatic directed therapies specifically for CRLM. For example, tumors maintaining the Ki-67 proliferation marker after thermal ablation was shown to be particularly resilient to ablation. Ablation margin was also shown to be an important factor in predicting local recurrence, with a ≥10 mm minimal ablation margin being required to attain local tumor control, especially for patients with mutant KRAS CRLM.

3D margin assessment predicts local tumor progression after ablation of colorectal cancer liver metastases

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and prognostic value of 3D measuring of the ablation margins using a dedicated image registration software.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 104 colorectal liver metastases in 68 consecutive patients that underwent microwave ablation between 08/2012 and 08/2019. The minimal ablation margin (MM) was measured in 2D using anatomic landmarks on contrast enhanced CT(CECT) 4-8 weeks post-ablation, and in 3D using an image registration software and immediate post-ablation CECT. Local tumor progression (LTP) was assessed by imaging up to 24 months after ablation. A blinded interventional radiologist provided feedback on the possibility of additional ablation after examining the 3D-margin measurements.

RESULTS

The 3D-margin assessment was completed in 79/104 (76%) tumors without the need for target manipulation. In 25/104 (24%) tumors, manipulation was required due to image misregistration. LTP was observed in 40/104 (38.5%) tumors: 92.5% vs 7.5% for those with margin <5mm vs ≥5mm, respectively (p = 0.0001). The 2D and 3D-assessments identified margin <5mm in 17/104 (16%), and in 74/104 (71%) ablated tumors, respectively (p < 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of the 3D software for predicting LTP was 93% (37/40) and 42% (27/64), respectively. Additional ablation to achieve a MM of 5 mm would have been offered in 26/37 cases if the 3D-margin assessment was available intraoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Image registration software can measure ablation margins and detect MM under 5 mm intraoperatively, with significantly higher sensitivity than the 2D technique using landmarks on the post-ablation CECT. The identification of a margin under 5 mm is strongly associated with LTP.