Intraprocedural 3D perfusion measurement during chemoembolisation with doxorubicin-eluting beads in liver metastases of malignant melanoma.

OBJECTIVES: To study feasibility and validity of a new software application for intraprocedural assessment of perfusion during chemoembolisation of melanoma metastases. METHODOLOGY: In a prospective phase-II trial, ten melanoma patients with liver-only metastases underwent chemoembolisation with doxorubicin-eluting beads (DEBDOX-TACE). Tumour perfusion was evaluated immediately before and after treatment at cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) using a new software application. For control and comparison, patients underwent perfusion measurement via contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) before and after treatment. RESULTS: CBCT showed 94.7 % reduction in perfusion in metastases after DEBDOX-TACE, whereas MDCT showed 96.8 %. Reduction in perfusion after treatment was statistically significant (p < 0.01) for both methods. The additional time needed for data acquisition during treatment was 5 min per case or less; the post-processing data analysis was 10 min or less. Perfusion imaging was associated with additional contrast agent and patient exposure to radiation (dose-length product [DLP]): 18 ml and 394 mGy*cm in CBCT and 100 ml and 446 mGy*cm in MDCT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in perfusion of melanoma metastases after DEBDOX-TACE can be reliably assessed during the intervention via perfusion software at CBCT. Data acquisition and analysis require additional time but can be easily performed during the treatment. KEY POINTS: • Tumour perfusion of melanoma metastases can be assessed at cone beam CT. • The software shows a significant decrease of tumour perfusion after DEBDOX-TACE. • Data acquisition and analysis require an acceptable additional time during the procedure. • CBCT requires less radiation exposure and contrast for perfusion study than MSCT. • This software can monitor the course of DEBDOX-TACE in melanoma metastases.

Impact of Different Embolic Agents for Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) Procedures on Systemic Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Levels.

Background and Aims: Intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be treated by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, there appear to be side effects, such as induction of proangiogenic factors, e.g. vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which have been shown to be associated with a poor prognosis. This prospective study was designed to compare serum VEGF level response after TACE with different embolic agents in patients with HCC. Methods: Patients were assigned to one of three different TACE regimens: degradable starch microspheres (DSM) TACE, drug-eluting bead (DEBDOX) TACE or Lipiodol TACE (cTACE). All patients received 50 mg doxorubicin/m2 body surface area (BSA) during TACE. Serum VEGF levels were assessed before TACE treatment, 24 h post-treatment and 4 weeks later. Results: Twenty-two patients with 30 TACE treatments were enrolled. Compared to baseline VEGF levels, a marked increase was observed for 24 h post-TACE (164% of baseline level) and during the 4-week follow-up (170% of baseline level) only for the cTACE arm (p < 0.05). In contrast, the increase of serum VEGF levels were only 114% and 123% for DEBDOX and 121% and 124% for DSM, respectively. Conclusions: Conventional TACE using Lipiodol shows marked increase in blood levels of the proangiogenic factor VEGF, while DEBDOX and DSM TACE induce only a moderate VEGF response.

Bipolar versus multipolar radiofrequency (RF) ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: differences in technical and clinical parameters.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare retrospectively bipolar RF ablation with multipolar RF ablation for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 2009 and June 2012, 12 tumours (nine patients) treated with bipolar RF ablation (one applicator) and 14 tumours (11 patients) treated with multipolar RF ablation (two applicators) were compared systematically. Selection between bipolar RF ablation and multipolar RF ablation was operator choice considering tumour size. Study goals included differences in tumour and coagulation extent, and technical parameters (total RF energy delivery and RF ablation time per coagulation volume). RESULTS: Tumour maximum diameter was significantly larger for multipolar RF ablation compared with bipolar RF ablation (27.0 mm versus 19.4 mm; p < 0.01). This difference is partially dependent on operator choice. Coagulation length, width and volume were significantly larger for multipolar RF ablation compared with bipolar RF ablation (35.0 mm versus 26.5 mm, 27.5 mm versus 23.0 mm and 14.3 cm(3) versus 8.1 cm(3); p < 0.01, p < 0.05 and p < 0.05, respectively). Coagulation circularity was not significantly different between both study groups (0.8 versus 0.8; not significant). Total RF energy delivery was significantly higher and RF ablation time per coagulation volume was significantly shorter for multipolar RF ablation compared with bipolar RF ablation (52.0 kJ versus 28.6 kJ and 2.4 min/cm(3) versus 4.1 min/cm(3); p < 0.05 and p < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Multipolar RF ablation creates a significantly larger coagulation width, but identical coagulation shape, compared with bipolar RF ablation. Additionally, multipolar RF ablation coagulates faster according to the shorter RF ablation time per coagulation volume.