1
|
Floridi C, Cellina M, Irmici G, Bruno A, Rossini N, Borgheresi A, Agostini A, Bruno F, Arrigoni F, Arrichiello A, Candelari R, Barile A, Carrafiello G, Giovagnoni A. Precision Imaging Guidance in the Era of Precision Oncology: An Update of Imaging Tools for Interventional Procedures. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11144028. [PMID: 35887791 PMCID: PMC9322069 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2022] [Revised: 07/02/2022] [Accepted: 07/08/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Interventional oncology (IO) procedures have become extremely popular in interventional radiology (IR) and play an essential role in the diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care of oncologic patients through new and safe procedures. IR procedures can be divided into two main groups: vascular and non-vascular. Vascular approaches are mainly based on embolization and concomitant injection of chemotherapeutics directly into the tumor-feeding vessels. Percutaneous approaches are a type of non-vascular procedures and include percutaneous image-guided biopsies and different ablation techniques with radiofrequency, microwaves, cryoablation, and focused ultrasound. The use of these techniques requires precise imaging pretreatment planning and guidance that can be provided through different imaging techniques: ultrasound, computed tomography, cone-beam computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. These imaging modalities can be used alone or in combination, thanks to fusion imaging, to further improve the confidence of the operators and the efficacy and safety of the procedures. This article aims is to provide an overview of the available IO procedures based on clinical imaging guidance to develop a targeted and optimal approach to cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chiara Floridi
- Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, University Politecnica delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy; (A.B.); (N.R.); (A.A.); (A.G.)
- Division of Special and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital “Umberto I—Lancisi—Salesi”, 60126 Ancona, Italy;
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiological Sciences, University Politecnica Delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy;
- Correspondence:
| | - Michaela Cellina
- Radiology Department, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, 20122 Milan, Italy;
| | - Giovanni Irmici
- Post-Graduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy; (G.I.); (A.A.)
| | - Alessandra Bruno
- Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, University Politecnica delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy; (A.B.); (N.R.); (A.A.); (A.G.)
| | - Nicolo’ Rossini
- Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, University Politecnica delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy; (A.B.); (N.R.); (A.A.); (A.G.)
| | - Alessandra Borgheresi
- Division of Special and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital “Umberto I—Lancisi—Salesi”, 60126 Ancona, Italy;
| | - Andrea Agostini
- Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, University Politecnica delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy; (A.B.); (N.R.); (A.A.); (A.G.)
| | - Federico Bruno
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy; (F.B.); (A.B.)
| | - Francesco Arrigoni
- Emergency and Interventional Radiology, San Salvatore Hospital, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy;
| | - Antonio Arrichiello
- Post-Graduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy; (G.I.); (A.A.)
| | - Roberto Candelari
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiological Sciences, University Politecnica Delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy;
| | - Antonio Barile
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy; (F.B.); (A.B.)
| | - Gianpaolo Carrafiello
- Operative Unit of Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico di Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy;
- Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Giovagnoni
- Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, University Politecnica delle Marche, 60126 Ancona, Italy; (A.B.); (N.R.); (A.A.); (A.G.)
- Division of Special and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital “Umberto I—Lancisi—Salesi”, 60126 Ancona, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Drug-eluting bead trans-arterial chemoembolization combined with microwave ablation therapy vs. microwave ablation alone for early stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary investigation of clinical value. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2021; 148:1781-1788. [PMID: 34405295 PMCID: PMC9189084 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03760-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To assess the clinical value of drug-eluting bead trans-arterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) combined with microwave ablation (MWA) vs. MWA treatment alone for early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and methods Consecutive data from 102 HCC patients at early stage who were referred to our hospital from December 2014 to May 2016 were retrospectively collected. Forty-seven patients underwent DEB-TACE combined with MWA treatment, whereas 55 patients underwent MWA alone. After 1 month of treatment, the tumour responses of the patients were assessed using the mRECIST criteria. Treatment-related complications and hepatic function were also analysed for the two groups. In addition, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated and compared. Results Patients in the combined treatment group (DEB-TACE combined with MWA) presented a better objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) compared with those in the monotherapy group (MWA treatment). The median OS and PFS were longer in the combined treatment group compared with the monotherapy group. Multivariate Cox’s regression further illustrated that DEB-TACE + MWA vs. MWA was an independent protective factor for PFS and OS. No serious treatment-related complications were observed in any of the patients. Conclusion Combined treatment with DEB-TACE appeared to have advantages in prolonging OS and PFS compared to MWA. Therefore, combined treatment was efficient and should be strongly recommended to early stage HCC patients.
Collapse
|
3
|
MR-guided microwave ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): is general anesthesia more effective than local anesthesia? BMC Cancer 2021; 21:562. [PMID: 34001036 PMCID: PMC8130145 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08298-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2021] [Accepted: 05/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Percutaneous magnetic resonance-guided (MR-guided) MWA procedures have traditionally been performed under local anesthesia (LA) and sedation. However, pain control is often difficult to manage, especially in some cases when the tumor is large or in a specific location, such as near the abdominal wall or close to the hepatic dome. This study retrospectively compared the results of general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) for MR-guided microwave ablation (MWA) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC ≤ 5.0 cm) to investigate whether different anesthesia methods lead to different clinical outcomes. Methods The results of the analysis include procedure-related complications, imaging response, and the time to complete two sets of procedures. According to the type of anesthesia, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the local tumor progression (LTP) of the two groups who underwent MR-guided MWA. Results All patients achieved technical success. The mean ablation duration of each patient in the GA group and LA group was remarkably different (P = 0.012). Both groups had no difference in complications or LTP (both P > 0.05). Notably, the tumor location (challenging locations) and the number of lesions (2–3 lesions) could be the main factors affecting LTP (p = 0.000, p = 0.015). Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression indicated that using different anesthesia methods (GA and LA) was not associated with longer LTP (P = 0.237), while tumor location (challenging locations) and the number of lesions (2–3 lesions) were both related to shorter LTP (P = 0.000, P = 0.020, respectively). Additionally, multivariate Cox regression further revealed that the tumor location (regular locations) and the number of lesions (single) could independently predict better LTP (P = 0.000, P = 0.005, respectively). Conclusions No correlation was observed between GA and LA for LTP after MR-guided MWA. However, tumors in challenging locations and the number of lesions (2–3 lesions) appear to be the main factors affecting LTP.
Collapse
|