Evaluation of Local Tumor Outcomes Following Microwave Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases Using CT Imaging: A Comparison of Visual versus Quantitative Methods.

IF 5.6 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Joshua D Shur, Nuria Porta, Leila Kafaei, Laura Pendower, James McCall, Nasir Khan, Wim Oyen, Dow-Mu Koh, Edward Johnston
{"title":"Evaluation of Local Tumor Outcomes Following Microwave Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases Using CT Imaging: A Comparison of Visual versus Quantitative Methods.","authors":"Joshua D Shur, Nuria Porta, Leila Kafaei, Laura Pendower, James McCall, Nasir Khan, Wim Oyen, Dow-Mu Koh, Edward Johnston","doi":"10.1148/rycan.230147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To compare visual versus quantitative ablation confirmation for identifying local tumor progression and residual tumor following microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing MWA of CRLM from October 2014 to February 2018. Two independent readers visually assessed pre- and postprocedure images and semiquantitatively scored for incomplete ablation, using a six-point Likert scale, and extracted quantitative imaging metrics of minimal ablative margin (MAM) and percentage of tumor outside of the ablation zone, using both rigid and deformable registration. Diagnostic accuracy and intra- and interobserver agreement were assessed. Results The study included 60 patients (median age, 71 years [IQR, 60-74.5 years]; 38 male) with 97 tumors with a median diameter of 1.3 cm (IQR, 1.0-1.8 cm). Median follow-up time was 749 days (IQR, 330-1519 days). Median time to complete rigid and deformable workflows was 3.0 minutes (IQR, 3.0-3.2 minutes) and 14.0 minutes (IQR,13.9-14.4 minutes), respectively. MAM with deformable registration had the highest intra- and interobserver agreement, with Gwet AC1 of 0.92 and 0.67, respectively, significantly higher than interobserver agreement of visual assessment (Gwet AC1, 0.18; <i>P</i> < .0001). Overall, quantitative methods using MAM had generally higher sensitivity, of up to 95.6%, than visual methods (67.3%, <i>P</i> < .001), at a cost of lower specificity (40% vs 71.1%, <i>P</i> < .001), using deformable image registration. Conclusion Quantitative ablation margin metrics provide more reliable assessment of outcomes than visual comparison using pre- and postprocedure diagnostic images following MWA of CRLM. <b>Keywords:</b> Interventional-Body, Liver, Neoplasms, Ablation Techniques <i>Supplemental material is available for this article</i>. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 1","pages":"e230147"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11791670/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.230147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To compare visual versus quantitative ablation confirmation for identifying local tumor progression and residual tumor following microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing MWA of CRLM from October 2014 to February 2018. Two independent readers visually assessed pre- and postprocedure images and semiquantitatively scored for incomplete ablation, using a six-point Likert scale, and extracted quantitative imaging metrics of minimal ablative margin (MAM) and percentage of tumor outside of the ablation zone, using both rigid and deformable registration. Diagnostic accuracy and intra- and interobserver agreement were assessed. Results The study included 60 patients (median age, 71 years [IQR, 60-74.5 years]; 38 male) with 97 tumors with a median diameter of 1.3 cm (IQR, 1.0-1.8 cm). Median follow-up time was 749 days (IQR, 330-1519 days). Median time to complete rigid and deformable workflows was 3.0 minutes (IQR, 3.0-3.2 minutes) and 14.0 minutes (IQR,13.9-14.4 minutes), respectively. MAM with deformable registration had the highest intra- and interobserver agreement, with Gwet AC1 of 0.92 and 0.67, respectively, significantly higher than interobserver agreement of visual assessment (Gwet AC1, 0.18; P < .0001). Overall, quantitative methods using MAM had generally higher sensitivity, of up to 95.6%, than visual methods (67.3%, P < .001), at a cost of lower specificity (40% vs 71.1%, P < .001), using deformable image registration. Conclusion Quantitative ablation margin metrics provide more reliable assessment of outcomes than visual comparison using pre- and postprocedure diagnostic images following MWA of CRLM. Keywords: Interventional-Body, Liver, Neoplasms, Ablation Techniques Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

用CT评价微波消融结直肠肝转移瘤后局部肿瘤的预后:视觉与定量方法的比较。
目的比较微波消融术(MWA)对结直肠肝转移瘤(CRLM)的局部肿瘤进展和残留肿瘤的鉴别效果。材料与方法本回顾性研究纳入2014年10月至2018年2月行CRLM MWA的患者。两名独立的读者视觉评估术前和术后图像,使用6分Likert量表对不完全消融进行半定量评分,并使用刚性和可变形配准提取最小消融边缘(MAM)和消融区外肿瘤百分比的定量成像指标。评估诊断的准确性和观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。结果纳入60例患者,中位年龄71岁[IQR, 60-74.5岁];38例男性),肿瘤97例,中位直径1.3 cm (IQR, 1.0-1.8 cm)。中位随访时间为749天(IQR, 330-1519天)。完成刚性和可变形工作流程的中位时间分别为3.0分钟(IQR, 3.0-3.2分钟)和14.0分钟(IQR,13.9-14.4分钟)。具有可变形配准的MAM具有最高的观察者内一致性和观察者间一致性,Gwet AC1分别为0.92和0.67,显著高于视觉评价的观察者间一致性(Gwet AC1, 0.18;P < 0.0001)。总体而言,使用MAM的定量方法通常具有更高的灵敏度,高达95.6%,高于使用可变形图像配准的视觉方法(67.3%,P < .001),但代价是特异性较低(40%对71.1%,P < .001)。结论定量消融边缘指标比术前和术后诊断图像的目视比较更可靠。关键词:介入体,肝脏,肿瘤,消融技术本文有补充资料。在CC BY 4.0许可下发布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
2.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信