Rates and patterns of recurrence for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and open wedge resection for solitary colorectal liver metastasis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare rates and patterns of disease progression following percutaneous, image-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and nonanatomic wedge resection for solitary colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

We identified 30 patients who underwent nonanatomic wedge resection for solitary liver metastases and 22 patients who underwent percutaneous RFA because of prior major hepatectomy (50%), major medical comorbidities (41%), or relative unresectability (9%). Serial imaging studies were retrospectively reviewed for evidence of local tumor progression.

RESULTS

Patients in the RFA group were more likely to have undergone prior liver resection, to have a disease-free interval greater than 1 year, and to have had an abnormal carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level before treatment. Two-year local tumor progression-free survival (PFS) was 88% in the Wedge group and 41% in the RFA group. Two patients in the RFA group underwent re-ablation, and two patients underwent resection to improve the 2-year local tumor disease-free survival to 55%. Approximately 30% of patients in each group presented with distant metastasis as a component of their first recurrence. Median overall survival from the time of resection was 80 months in the Wedge group vs 31 months in the RFA group. However, overall survival from the time of treatment of the colorectal primary was not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Local tumor progression is common after percutaneous RFA. Surgical resection remains the gold standard treatment for patients who are candidates for resection. For patients who are poor candidates for resection, RFA may help to manage local disease, but close follow-up and retreatment are necessary to achieve optimal results.

Prospective, blinded comparison of helical CT and CT arterial portography in the assessment of hepatic metastasis from colorectal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This prospective blinded comparison of helical CT and helical CT arterial portography aimed to detect liver metastasis from colorectal carcinoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

50 patients with colorectal carcinoma were evaluated comparing helical CT with helical CT arterial portography. Each imaging study was evaluated on a 5-point ROC scale by radiologists blinded to the other imaging findings, and the results were compared, with the surgical and pathologic findings as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Of the 127 lesions found at pathology identified as metastatic colorectal cancer, helical CT correctly identified 85 (69%) and CT portography 96 (76%). When subgroups with lesions <3 cm (48 patients) and patients with maximum tumor size <3 cm (18 patients) were considered, CT portography was always better than helical CT in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. ROC analysis adjusting for multiple lesions per patient revealed significantly greater area under the curve (AUC) for the subgroup of lesions <3 cm (CT-AUC of 77% and CT portography AUC of 81%; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

For identification of large metastases, helical CT and CT portography have similar yield. However, for detection of small liver metastases, CT portography remains superior for lesion detectability.

Evaluation of various maneuvers for prevention of air embolism during central venous catheter placement

This study is designed to evaluate the various physiologic maneuvers (Valsalva, humming, breath-hold) for the potential prevention of air embolism during central venous catheter placement. Central venous pressure measurements were prospectively obtained in 40 patients undergoing central venous catheter placement. The average central venous pressure at baseline was 3.275 mm Hg (range = -4 to 16, SD = 5.99). The average central venous pressure during breath hold was 6.1 mm Hg (range = -6 to 24, SD = 7.99). The average central venous pressure during humming was 5.1 mm Hg (range = -4 to 20, SD = 6.4) The average central venous pressure during the Valsalva maneuver was 18.43 (range = -3 to 48, SD = 14.73). Forty percent of patients (16 of 40) had negative central venous pressures at rest, 25% (10 of 40) had negative pressures during breath hold, 20% (8 of 40) had negative pressures during humming, and 2.5% (1 of 40) had negative pressures during Valsalva maneuver. The average increases in central venous pressure during breath hold, humming, and Valsalva were 2.85, 1.82, and 15.2 mm Hg, respectively. The difference between pressures during Valsalva and other maneuvers was statistically significant (P <.05). The conclusion is that the Valsalva maneuver is superior to breath-hold and humming for increasing central venous pressure during central venous catheter placement and, therefore, it is more likely to prevent air embolism in cooperative patients.