Shur Joshua D, Porta Nuria, Kafaei Leila, Pendower Laura, McCall James, Khan Nasir, Oyen Wim, Koh Dow-Mu, Johnston Edward
From the Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 203 Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, England (J.D.S., L.K., L.P., J.M., N.K., D.M.K., E.J.); Institute of Cancer Research, London, England (N.P., D.M.K.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands (W.O.).
Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2025 Jan;7(1):e230147. doi: 10.1148/rycan.230147.
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; < .0001). Overall, quantitative methods using MAM had generally higher sensitivity, of up to 95.6%, than visual methods (67.3%, < .001), at a cost of lower specificity (40% vs 71.1%, < .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. Interventional-Body, Liver, Neoplasms, Ablation Techniques . Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.
目的 比较视觉评估与定量消融确认在识别结直肠癌肝转移(CRLM)微波消融(MWA)后局部肿瘤进展和残留肿瘤方面的效果。材料与方法 这项回顾性研究纳入了2014年10月至2018年2月期间接受CRLM的MWA治疗的患者。两名独立阅片者对术前和术后图像进行视觉评估,并使用六点李克特量表对不完全消融进行半定量评分,同时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。评估诊断准确性以及观察者内和观察者间的一致性。结果 该研究纳入了60例患者(中位年龄71岁[四分位间距,60 - 74.5岁];38例男性),共97个肿瘤,中位直径为1.3 cm(四分位间距,1.0 - 1.8 cm)。中位随访时间为749天(四分位间距,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(四分位间距,3.0 - 3.2分钟)和14.0分钟(四分位间距,13.9 - 14.4分钟)。使用可变形配准的MAM在观察者内和观察者间具有最高的一致性,Gwet AC1分别为0.92和0.67,显著高于视觉评估的观察者间一致性(Gwet AC1,0.18;P <.0001)。总体而言,使用MAM的定量方法通常具有比视觉方法更高的敏感性,高达95.6%,而视觉方法为67.3%(P <.001),代价是特异性较低(40%对71.1%,P <.001),采用可变形图像配准。结论 对于CRLM的MWA,定量消融边缘指标比使用术前和术后诊断图像的视觉比较能提供更可靠的结果评估。介入 - 身体、肝脏、肿瘤、消融技术。根据知识共享署名4.0许可协议发布。