Intraprocedural Versus Initial Follow-up Minimal Ablative Margin Assessment After Colorectal Liver Metastasis Thermal Ablation: Which One Better Predicts Local Outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of 3-dimensional minimal ablative margin (MAM) quantified by intraprocedural versus initial follow-up computed tomography (CT) in predicting local tumor progression (LTP) after colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) thermal ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-institution, patient-clustered, tumor-based retrospective study included patients undergoing microwave and radiofrequency ablation between 2016 and 2021. Patients without intraprocedural and initial follow-up contrast-enhanced CT, residual tumors, or with follow-up less than 1 year without LTP were excluded. Minimal ablative margin was quantified by a biomechanical deformable image registration method with segmentations of CLMs on intraprocedural preablation CT and ablation zones on intraprocedural postablation and initial follow-up CT. Prognostic value of MAM to predict LTP was tested using area under the curve and competing-risk regression model. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 57 ± 12 years; 43 men) with 133 CLMs were included. During a median follow-up of 30.3 months, LTP rate was 17% (22/133). The median volume of ablation zone was 27 mL and 16 mL segmented on intraprocedural and initial follow-up CT, respectively ( P < 0.001), with corresponding median MAM of 4.7 mm and 0 mm, respectively ( P < 0.001). The area under the curve was higher for MAM quantified on intraprocedural CT (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.94) compared with initial follow-up CT (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76) in predicting 1-year LTP ( P < 0.001). An MAM of 0 mm on intraprocedural CT was an independent predictor of LTP with a subdistribution hazards ratio of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.9-28.9; P < 0.001), compared with 2.4 (95% CI, 0.9-6.0; P = 0.07) on initial follow-up CT. CONCLUSIONS: Ablative margin quantified on intraprocedural CT significantly outperformed initial follow-up CT in predicting LTP and should be used for ablation endpoint assessment.

Comparison of radiation dose and image quality between flat panel computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in a hybrid CT-angiography suite.

The purpose of this study was to compare, using the same radiation dose and image quality metrics, flat panel computed tomography (FPCT) to multidetector CT (MDCT) in interventional radiology. A single robotic angiography system with FPCT was compared to a single MDCT system, both installed in a hybrid CT-angiography laboratory and both operating under automatic exposure control. Radiation dose was measured on the central axis (Dc ) of a CT dosimetry phantom 30 cm in diameter and 60 cm in length using default protocols for FPCT and MDCT with the imaged length in MDCT matched to the field of view of FPCT. The noise power spectrum (NPS), modulation transfer function (MTF), and z-axis resolution were measured using the same phantom. Iodine contrast to noise ratio (CNR) was also measured. Radiation dose (Dc ) was 41%-69% lower in MDCT compared to FPCT when default protocols and automatic exposure control were used. While spatial resolution could generally be matched with appropriate choice of kernel in MDCT, MTF dropped more quickly at higher spatial frequency for MDCT than FPCT. Image noise was 49%-120% higher for MDCT compared to FPCT for comparable in-plane spatial resolution. Z-axis resolution was slightly better for MDCT than FPCT, while iodine CNR depended on protocol selection. Radiation dose was much lower for MDCT compared to FPCT, but image noise was much higher. Matching image noise in MDCT to FPCT would result in similar radiation doses. Iodine contrast depended on dose modulation settings for MDCT.

Prognostic value of incidental hypervascular micronodules detected on cone-beam computed tomography angiography of patients with liver metastasis.

PURPOSE: To determine the clinical relevance of incidentally-found hypervascular micronodules (IHM) on cone-beam computed tomography angiography (CBCTA) in patients with liver metastasis undergoing transarterial (chemo)embolization (TACE/TAE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved single-institution retrospective review of 95 non-cirrhotic patients (52 men; mean age, 60 years) who underwent CBCTA prior to (chemo)embolic delivery. IHM were defined by the presence of innumerable subcentimetre hepatic parenchymal hypevascular foci not detected on pre-TACE/TAE contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging. Multivariate analysis was performed to compare time to tumour progression (TTP) between patients with and without IHM. RESULTS: IHM were present in 21 (22%) patients. Patients with IHM had a significantly shorter intrahepatic TTP determined by a higher frequency of developing new liver metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-3.67, P= 0.02). Patients with IHM trended towards a shorter TTP of the tumour(s) treated with TACE/TAE (HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 0.98-3.01, P= 0.056). Extrahepatic TTP was not significantly different between the two cohorts (P= 0.27). CONCLUSION: Patients with IHM on CBCTA have worse prognosis due to a significantly higher risk of developing new hepatic tumours. Further work is needed to elucidate its underlying mechanisms of pathogenesis. KEY POINTS: • 21% of liver metastasis patients undergoing TACE/TAE have IHM on CBTA. • IHM are associated with a high risk of developing new hepatic tumours. • IHA are also associated with a trend toward poorer response to TACE/TAE.

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging.

PURPOSE: To measure the knowledge of oncology patients regarding use and potential risks of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging. METHODS: A 30-question survey was developed and e-mailed to 48,736 randomly selected patients who had undergone a diagnostic imaging study at a comprehensive cancer center between November 1, 2013 and January 31, 2014. The survey was designed to measure patients' knowledge about use of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging and attitudes about radiation. Nonresponse bias was quantified by sending an abbreviated survey to patients who did not respond to the original survey. RESULTS: Of the 48,736 individuals who were sent the initial survey, 9,098 (18.7%) opened it, and 5,462 (11.2%) completed it. A total of 21.7% of respondents reported knowing the definition of ionizing radiation; 35.1% stated correctly that CT used ionizing radiation; and 29.4% stated incorrectly that MRI used ionizing radiation. Many respondents did not understand risks from exposure to diagnostic doses of ionizing radiation: Of 3,139 respondents who believed that an abdominopelvic CT scan carried risk, 1,283 (40.9%) believed sterility was a risk; 669 (21.3%) believed heritable mutations were a risk; 657 (20.9%) believed acute radiation sickness was a risk; and 135 (4.3%) believed cataracts were a risk. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and caregivers do not possess basic knowledge regarding the use of ionizing radiation in oncologic diagnostic imaging. To ensure health literacy and high-quality patient decision making, efforts to educate patients and caregivers should be increased. Such education might begin with information about effects that are not risks of diagnostic imaging.