Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: In thermal ablation of malignant liver tumors, ablation dimensions remain poorly predictable. This study aimed to investigate factors influencing volumetric ablation dimensions in patients treated with stereotactic microwave ablation (SMWA) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).
Methods: Ablation volumes from CRLM ≤3 cm treated with SMWA within a prospective European multicentre trial were segmented. Correlations between applied ablation energies and resulting effective ablation volumes (EAV) and ablation volume irregularities (AVI) were investigated. A novel measure for AVI, including minimum enclosing and maximum inscribed ellipsoid ablation volumes, and a surrogate parameter for the expansion of ablation energy (EAV per applied energy), was introduced. Potential influences of tumor and patient-specific factors on EAV per applied energy and AVI were analyzed using multivariable mixed-effects models.
Results: A total of 116 ablations from 71 patients were included for analyses. Correlations of EAV or AVI and ablation energy were weak to moderate, with a maximum of 25% of the variability in EAV and 13% in AVI explained by the applied ablation energy. On multivariable analysis, ablation expansion (EAV per applied ablation energy) was influenced mainly by the tumor radius ( = -0.03, [CI -0.04, -0.007]). AVI was significantly larger with higher applied ablation energies ( = 0.002 [CI 0.0007, 0.002]]); liver steatosis, KRAS mutation, subcapsular location or proximity to major blood vessels had no influence.
Conclusions: This study confirmed that factors beyond the applied ablation energy might affect volumetric ablation dimensions, resulting in poor predictability. Further clinical trials including tissue sampling are needed to relate physical tissue properties to ablation expansion.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2021.1965224 | DOI Listing |