Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Korean J Radiol. 2018 Nov-Dec;19(6):1053-1065. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1053. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
To evaluate the clinical impact of using registration software for ablative margin assessment on pre-radiofrequency ablation (RFA) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and post-RFA computed tomography (CT) compared with the conventional side-by-side MR-CT visual comparison.
In this Institutional Review Board-approved prospective study, 68 patients with 88 hepatocellulcar carcinomas (HCCs) who had undergone pre-RFA MRI were enrolled. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Pre-RFA MRI and post-RFA CT images were analyzed to evaluate the presence of a sufficient safety margin (≥ 3 mm) in two separate sessions using either side-by-side visual comparison or non-rigid registration software. Patients with an insufficient ablative margin on either one or both methods underwent additional treatment depending on the technical feasibility and patient's condition. Then, ablative margins were re-assessed using both methods. Local tumor progression (LTP) rates were compared between the sufficient and insufficient margin groups in each method.
The two methods showed 14.8% (13/88) discordance in estimating sufficient ablative margins. On registration software-assisted inspection, patients with insufficient ablative margins showed a significantly higher 5-year LTP rate than those with sufficient ablative margins (66.7% vs. 27.0%, = 0.004). However, classification by visual inspection alone did not reveal a significant difference in 5-year LTP between the two groups (28.6% vs. 30.5%, = 0.79).
Registration software provided better ablative margin assessment than did visual inspection in patients with HCCs who had undergone pre-RFA MRI and post-RFA CT for prediction of LTP after RFA and may provide more precise risk stratification of those who are treated with RFA.
评估在射频消融(RFA)前磁共振成像(MRI)和 RFA 后计算机断层扫描(CT)中使用配准软件进行消融边界评估与传统的并排 MRI-CT 视觉比较相比的临床影响。
在这项获得机构审查委员会批准的前瞻性研究中,纳入了 68 名接受 RFA 前 MRI 检查的 88 例肝细胞癌(HCC)患者。所有患者均获得了知情同意。在两个单独的会议中,使用并排视觉比较或非刚性配准软件分别分析 RFA 前 MRI 和 RFA 后 CT 图像,以评估是否存在足够的安全边界(≥3mm)。如果在一种或两种方法中都存在消融边界不足的情况,则根据技术可行性和患者情况进行额外的治疗。然后,使用两种方法重新评估消融边界。在每种方法中,比较足够和不足的消融边界组之间的局部肿瘤进展(LTP)率。
两种方法在估计足够的消融边界方面存在 14.8%(13/88)的不一致性。在配准软件辅助检查中,消融边界不足的患者的 5 年 LTP 率明显高于消融边界充足的患者(66.7%对 27.0%, = 0.004)。然而,仅通过视觉检查分类在两组之间 5 年 LTP 没有发现显著差异(28.6%对 30.5%, = 0.79)。
在接受 RFA 前 MRI 和 RFA 后 CT 检查的 HCC 患者中,配准软件提供了比视觉检查更好的消融边界评估,可预测 RFA 后 LTP,并且可能为接受 RFA 治疗的患者提供更精确的风险分层。