Objectives The aim of the present study is to analyze preclinical and clinical data on the performance of the currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved microwave ablation (MWA) systems. Methods A review of the literature, published between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016, on seven FDA-approved MWA systems, was conducted. Ratio of ablation zone volume to applied energy R(AZ:E) and sphericity indices were calculated for ex vivo and in vivo experiments. Results Thirty-four studies with ex vivo, in vivo, and clinical data were summarized. In total, 14 studies reporting data on ablation zone volume and applied energy were included for comparison R(AZ:E). A significant correlation between volume and energy was found for the ex vivo experiments ( r = 0.85, p < 0.001) in contrast to the in vivo experiments ( r = 0.54, p = 0.27). Conclusion Manufacturers’ algorithms on microwave ablation zone sizes are based on preclinical animal experiments with normal liver parenchyma. Clinical data reporting on ablation zone volume in relation to applied energy and sphericity index during MWA are scarce and require more adequate reporting of MWA data. Key Points • Clinical data reporting on the ablation zone volume in relation to applied energy during microwave ablation are scarce. • Manufacturers’ algorithms on microwave ablation zone sizes are based on preclinical animal experiments with normal liver parenchyma. • Preclinical data do not predict actual clinical ablation zone volumes in patients with liver tumors.

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

To compare the accuracy of freehand versus robotic antenna placement in CT-guided microwave ablation (MWA) of liver tumors. Materials and Methods:This study was conducted as a prospective single-center nonblinded randomized controlled trial (Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR6023). Eligible study participants had undergone clinically indicated CT-guided MWA of liver tumors and were able to receive a CT contrast agent. Randomization was performed per tumor after identification on contrast material-enhanced CT images. The primary outcome was the number of antenna repositionings, which was compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes were lateral targeting error stratified by in-plane and out-of-plane targets and targeting time.Results: Between February 14 and November 12, 2017, 31 participants with a mean age of 63 years (range, 25-88 years) were included: 17 women (mean age, 57 years; range, 25-77 years) and 14 men (mean age, 70 years; range, 52-88 years). The freehand study arm consisted of 19 participants, while the robotic study arm consisted of 18 participants; six participants with multiple tumors were included in both arms. Forty-seven tumors were assessed; five tumors were excluded from the analysis because of technical limitations. In the robotic arm, no antenna repositioning was required. In the freehand arm, a median of one repositioning was required (range, zero to seven repositionings; P , .001). For out-of-plane targets, lateral targeting error was 10.1 mm 6 4.0 and 5.9 mm 6 2.9 (P = .007) for freehand and robotic procedures, respectively, and for in-plane targets, lateral targeting error was 6.2 mm 6 2.7 and 7.7 mm 6 5.9, respectively (P = .51). Mean targeting time was 19 minutes (range, 8-55 minutes) and 36 minutes (range, 3-70 minutes; P = .001) for freehand and robotic procedures, respectively. Conclusion:Robotic antenna guidance reduces the need for antenna repositioning in microwave ablation to accurately target liver tumors and increases accuracy for out-of-plane targets. However, targeting time was greater with robotic guidance than with freehand targeting.