2010
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.09.2954
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Minimal Ablative Margin of Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (> 2 and < 5 cm) Needed to Prevent Local Tumor Progression: 3D Quantitative Assessment Using CT Image Fusion

Abstract: When the thickness of the ablative margin is evaluated by CT image fusion, a margin of 3 mm or more appears to be associated with a lower rate of local tumor progression after percutaneous RFA of HCC.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
224
1
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 242 publications
(238 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
12
224
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To assess the safety margins, the fusion imaging method was used. We used an open source DICOM software (OsiriX Foundation; Geneva, Switzerland) capable of performing imaging fusion of CT images prior to and following RFA, as described previously (23). CT data were acquired from the CT workstation, with a 0.69-mm thickness.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess the safety margins, the fusion imaging method was used. We used an open source DICOM software (OsiriX Foundation; Geneva, Switzerland) capable of performing imaging fusion of CT images prior to and following RFA, as described previously (23). CT data were acquired from the CT workstation, with a 0.69-mm thickness.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The likelihood of local progression increases with tumor size as a result of satellite nodules (8), which is why a 5-mm minimum ablation margin is recommended by several studies (9,10). However, some of these studies (9,11,12) used a rigid registration that is not optimal for the liver because of significant deformations by respiratory movements and the ablation zone (13). Moreover, these studies assessed only two-dimensional minimal margins, failing to take into account the heterogeneous shape of the ablative volume around the tumor and that the minimal margin is not necessarily indicative of the margin sizes all around the tumor.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, possible micro-metastases or microscopic foci can also be destroyed and the risk of local recurrence is minimized. However, data to support precise recommendations regarding the ideal margin size are currently lacking [33,34]. Extension of the desired or intended ablative margin is not always necessary, as this can increase the risk of complications, but an insufficient ablative margin is defined as an independent significant risk factor for local tumor progression [8,33].…”
Section: Assessment Of Technical Effectivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%