F-18 FDG perfusion PET: intraprocedural assessment of the liver tumor ablation margin

Purpose To evaluate 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) perfusion PET during FDG PET/CT-guided liver tumor microwave ablation procedures for assessing the ablation margin and correlating minimum margin measurements with local progression. Methods This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study included 20 adult...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Abdominal imaging 2021-07, Vol.46 (7), p.3437-3447
Hauptverfasser: Shyn, Paul B., Cubre, Alan J., Catalano, Paul J., Lee, Leslie K., Hyun, Hyewon, Tuncali, Kemal, Seol, Julia G., Levesque, Vincent M., Gerbaudo, Victor H., Kapur, Tina, Chao, Ryan T., Silverman, Stuart G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To evaluate 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) perfusion PET during FDG PET/CT-guided liver tumor microwave ablation procedures for assessing the ablation margin and correlating minimum margin measurements with local progression. Methods This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study included 20 adult patients (11 M, 9 F; mean age 65) undergoing FDG PET/CT-guided liver microwave ablation to treat 31 FDG-avid tumors. Intraprocedural FDG perfusion PET was performed to assess the ablation margin. Intraprocedural decisions regarding overlapping ablations were recorded. Two readers retrospectively interpreted intraprocedural perfusion PET and postprocedural contrast-enhanced MRI. Assessability of the ablation margin and minimum margin measurements were recorded. Imaging follow-up for local progression ranged from 30 to 574 days (mean 310). Regression modeling of minimum margin measurements was performed. Hazard ratios were calculated to correlate an ablation margin threshold of 5 mm with outcomes. Results Intraprocedural perfusion PET prompted additional overlapping ablations of two tumors, neither of which progressed. Incomplete ablation or local progression occurred in 8/31 (26%) tumors. With repeat ablation, secondary efficacy was 26 (84%) of 31. Both study readers deemed ablation margins fully assessable more often using perfusion PET than MRI (OR 69.7; CI 6.0, 806.6; p  = 0.001). Minimum ablation margins ≥ 5 mm on perfusion PET correlated with a low risk of incomplete ablation/local progression by both study readers (HR 0.08 and 0.02, p  
ISSN:2366-004X
2366-0058
DOI:10.1007/s00261-021-02970-8