» Articles » PMID: 39789263

Bolus-Tracked Biphasic Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging Following Microwave Liver Ablation Improves Ablation Zone Conspicuity and Semi-automatic Segmentation Quality

Overview
Date 2025 Jan 9
PMID 39789263
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) may be performed immediately following microwave liver ablation for assessment of ablative margins. However, practices and protocols vary among institutions. Here, we compare a standardized bolus-tracked biphasic CECT protocol and compare this with a single venous phase fixed delay protocol for ablation zone (AZ) assessment.

Methods: An institutional review board approved study performed at a specialist cancer centre. A prospective cohort of patients undergoing bolus-tracked biphasic imaging was compared with a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent fixed delay venous phase imaging. AZ conspicuity and segmentation quality were semi-quantitatively scored using Five-point Likert scales. Time between ablation and image acquisition was recorded for each AZ and was correlated to AZ conspicuity and segmentation quality.

Results: Forty patients, median age 59 years (IQR 48-66 years), 24 men, underwent microwave ablation of 68 liver tumours. AZ conspicuity was higher in the bolus-tracked (n = 33) vs. fixed delay (n = 35) cohorts, 4.5 vs. 2.5, P < 0.0001. Commensurate segmentation quality was also higher, 5.0 vs. 3.0 respectively, P < 0.0001. Ordinal regression showed that image quality scores declined by 3-4% for each minute that passes after ablation, particularly for arterial phase images, where regression coefficients were - 0.04, P = 0.007, and -0.03, P = 0.012 for conspicuity and segmentation quality, respectively.

Conclusion: Bolus-tracked biphasic contrast-enhanced CT protocols improve both conspicuity and semi-automatic segmentation quality of microwave liver ablation zones, particularly if imaged soon after ablation.

Evidence-based Medicine: Level 2b; exploratory prospective cohort study.

References
1.
Meijerink M, Bale R, Siriwardena A . "Locally Treatable" to Replace "Resectable": Highlights from the European Multi-societal Consensus on Synchronous Colorectal Cancer with Liver Metastases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023; 46(11):1551-1552. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-023-03548-1. View

2.
Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, Ferrer-Fabrega J, Burrel M, Garcia-Criado A . BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2021; 76(3):681-693. PMC: 8866082. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018. View

3.
Crocetti L, De Baere T, Pereira P, Tarantino F . CIRSE Standards of Practice on Thermal Ablation of Liver Tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020; 43(7):951-962. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-020-02471-z. View

4.
Minier C, Hermida M, Allimant C, Escal L, Pierredon-Foulongne M, Belgour A . Software-based assessment of tumor margins after percutaneous thermal ablation of liver tumors: A systematic review. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022; 103(5):240-250. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2022.02.004. View

5.
Puijk R, Ahmed M, Adam A, Arai Y, Arellano R, De Baere T . Consensus Guidelines for the Definition of Time-to-Event End Points in Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Results of the SIO and DATECAN Initiative. Radiology. 2021; 301(3):533-540. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203715. View