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.

Study Protocol STEREOLAB: Stereotactic Liver Ablation Assisted with Intra-Arterial CT Hepatic Arteriography and Ablation Confirmation Software Assessment.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the technical efficacy and local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) of a standardized workflow for thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) consisting of CT during hepatic arteriography (CTHA)-based imaging analysis, stereotactic thermal ablation, and computer-based software assessment of ablation margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigator initiated, single-center, single-arm prospective trial will enroll up to 50 patients (≤ 5 CRLM, Measuring ≤ 5 cm). Procedures will be performed in an angio-CT suite under general anesthesia. The primary objective is to estimate LTPFS with a follow-up of up to 2 years and secondary objectives are analysis of the impact of minimal ablative margins on LTPFS, adverse events, contrast media utilization and radiation exposure, overall oncological outcomes, and anesthesia/procedural time. Adverse events (AE) will be recorded by CTCAE (Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events), and Bayesian optimal phase-2 design will be applied for major intraprocedural AE stop boundaries. The institutional CRLM ablation registry will be used as benchmark for comparative analysis with the historical cohort. DISCUSSION: The STEREOLAB trial will introduce a high-precision and standardized thermal ablation workflow for CRLM consisting of CT during hepatic arteriography imaging, stereotactic guidance, and ablation confirmation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: (NCT05361551).

Correlation of surgeon radiology assessment with laparoscopic disease site scoring in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic triage measures in patients with new advanced ovarian cancer have yielded inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlation between surgeon radiology assessment and laparoscopic scoring by disease sites in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: Fourteen gynecologic oncology surgeons from a single institution performed a blinded review of pre-operative contrast-enhanced CT imaging from patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Each of the patients had also undergone laparoscopic scoring assessment, between April 2013 and December 2017, to determine primary resectability using the validated Fagotti scoring method, and assigned a predictive index value score. Surgeons were asked to provide expected predictive index value scores based on their blinded review of the antecedent CT imaging. Linear mixed models were conducted to calculate the correlation between radiologic and laparoscopic score for surgeons individually, and as a group. Once the model was fit, the inter-class correlation and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Radiology review was performed on 20 patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment. Surgeon faculty rank included assistant professor (n=5), associate professor (p=4), and professor (n=5). The kappa inter-rater agreement was -0.017 (95% CI -0.023 to -0.005), indicating low inter-rater agreement between radiology review and actual laparoscopic score. The inter-class correlation in this model was 0.06 (0.02-0.21), indicating that surgeons do not score the same across all the images. When using a clinical cut-off point for the predictive index value of 8, the probability of agreement between radiology and actual laparoscopic score was 0.56 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.73). Examination of disease site sub-scales showed that the probability of agreement was as follows: peritoneum 0.57 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.62), diaphragm 0.54 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.60), mesentery 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.57), omentum 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.67), bowel 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64), stomach 0.71 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.76), and liver 0.36 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.42). The number of laparoscopic scoring cases, tumor reductive surgery cases, or faculty rank was not significantly associated with overall or sub-scale agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon radiology review did not correlate highly with actual laparoscopic scoring assessment findings in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Our study highlights the limited accuracy of surgeon radiographic assessment to determine resectability.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of a Patient-Centered Cancer Care Measure to Support Improved Assessment of Patients' Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To increase the understanding of patient-centered care (PCC) and address the need for cross-cutting quality cancer care measures that are relevant to both patients and providers. METHODS: An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on a short version of the Patients and the Cancer Care Experience Survey, a patient-reported measure of perceived importance of social, emotional, physical, and informational aspects of care, administered to adult patients (n = 104) at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Relationships between PCC dimensions and patient characteristics were also assessed. Principal axis factoring was applied and bivariate analyses were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Most of our sample was over 60 years old (63.4%), female (57.4%), and white (74.2%), with either breast (41.2%) or prostate cancer (27.5%). A 5-factor model was identified: (1) quality of life (α = .91), (2) provider social support (α = .83), (3) psychosocial needs (α = .91), (4) nonprovider social support (α = .79), and (5) health information and decision-making support (α = .88). No statistically significant associations were found between these factors and patients' characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A preliminary factor structure for a cancer PCC measure was identified. Our findings reinforce the interrelated nature of PCC dimensions. The lessons learned from this study may be used to develop a single PCC measure that identifies patient priorities across the cancer care continuum. Data collected from such a measure can be used to support patient engagement in treatment planning and decision-making.