Tumor and Ablation Margin Visibility during Cryoablation of Musculoskeletal Tumors: Comparing Intraprocedural PET/CT Images with CT-Only Images.

PURPOSE: To compare tumor and ice-ball margin visibility on intraprocedural positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and CT-only images and report technical success, local tumor progression, and adverse event rates for PET/CT-guided cryoablation procedures for musculoskeletal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated 20 PET/CT-guided cryoablation procedures performed with palliative and/or curative intent to treat 15 musculoskeletal tumors in 15 patients from 2012 to 2021. Cryoablation was performed using general anesthesia and PET/CT guidance. Procedural images were reviewed to determine the following: (a) whether the tumor borders could be fully assessed on PET/CT or CT-only images; and (b) whether tumor ice-ball margins could be fully assessed on PET/CT or CT-only images. The ability to visualize tumor borders and ice-ball margins on PET/CT images was compared with that on CT-only images. RESULTS: Tumor borders were fully assessable for 100% (20 of 20; 95% CI, 0.83-1) of procedures on PET/CT versus 20% (4 of 20; 95 CI, 0.057-0.44) of procedures on CT only (P < .001). The tumor ice-ball margin was fully assessable in 80% (16 of 20; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94) of procedures using PET/CT versus 5% (1 of 20; 95% CI, 0.0013-0.25) of procedures using CT only (P < .001). Primary technical success was achieved in 75% (15 of 20; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) of procedures. There was local tumor progression in 23% (3/13; 95% CI, 0.050-0.54) of the treated tumors with at least 6 months of follow-up. There were 3 adverse events (1 Grade 3, 1 Grade 2, and 1 Grade 1). CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT-guided cryoablation of musculoskeletal tumors can provide superior intraprocedural visualization of the tumor and ice-ball margins compared with that provided by CT alone. Further studies are warranted to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach.

Clinical Significance of Renal Allograft Urothelial Thickening Identified by Ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the etiology and clinical implications of ultrasound (US)-diagnosed urothelial thickening (UT) in renal transplants. METHODS: Patients with renal transplants who had UT diagnosed by US from January 2000 to December 2018 were retrospectively identified and compared to patients with transplants without UT scanned during the study period. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, US findings, pathologic results, laboratory values, and clinical outcomes and compared between groups by Fisher exact and t tests. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients with UT and 128 controls comprised our cohorts. The patient age in the UT group versus controls (mean ± SD, 50.2 ± 16.5 versus 51.2 ± 15.3 years) and the time since transplant (2.9 ± 4.2 versus 2.4 ± 5.8 years) were similar. Patients with UT were more likely to be female than controls (76 of 143 [53.1%] versus 53 of 128 [41.4%]; P = .07), but the difference was not statistically significant, and patients with UT were more likely to have indwelling stents (31 of 143 [21.7%] versus 9 of 128 [7.0%]; P = .001) and hydronephrosis (25 of 143 [17.4%] versus 11 of 128 [8.6%]; P = .03). At biopsy, rejection and vascular sclerosis were more likely in patients with UT compared to controls (24 of 25 [49.0%] versus 11 of 43 [25.6%]; P = .031; 42 of 49 [85.7%] versus 22 of 43 [51.2%]; P = .0005, respectively), whereas acute tubular necrosis was similar. The sensitivity (50.0%) and specificity (74.4%) of UT for rejection were low. CONCLUSIONS: Urothelial thickening correlates with US findings of urinary obstruction and indwelling stents, suggesting a possible mechanical component to UT's etiology. Although transplant rejection and vascular sclerosis were more frequent at biopsy in the UT group than controls, UT had low sensitivity and specificity for rejection.