Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: a retrospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) for the treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumours. METHODS: Fifteen patients with desmoid fibromatosis (six males, nine females; age range, 7-66 years) were treated with MRgFUS, with seven patients requiring multiple treatments (25 total treatments). Changes in viable and total tumour volumes were measured after treatment. Efficacy was evaluated using an exact one-sided Wilcoxon test to determine if the median reduction in viable tumour measured immediately after initial treatment exceeded a threshold of 50 % of the targeted volume. Median decrease after treatment of at least two points in numerical rating scale (NRS) worst and average pain scores was tested with an exact one-sided Wilcoxon test. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: After initial MRgFUS treatment, median viable targeted tumour volume decreased 63 %, significantly beyond our efficacy threshold (P = 0.0013). Median viable total tumour volume decreased (105 mL [interquartile range {IQR}, 217 mL] to 54 mL [IQR, 92 mL]) and pain improved (worst scores, 7.5 ± 1.9 vs 2.7 ± 2.6, P = 0.027; average scores, 6 ± 2.3 vs 1.3 ± 2, P = 0.021). Skin burn was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: MRgFUS significantly and durably reduced viable tumour volume and pain in this series of 15 patients with extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis. KEY POINTS: • Retrospective four-centre study shows MRgFUS safely and effectively treats extra-abdominal desmoid tumours • This non-invasive procedure can eradicate viable tumour in some cases • Alternatively, MRgFUS can provide durable control of tumour growth through repeated treatments • Compared to surgery or radiation, MRgFUS has relatively mild side effects.

Cost Accounting as a Tool for Increasing Cost Transparency in Selective Hepatic Transarterial Chemoembolization.

PURPOSE: To increase cost transparency and uncover potential areas for savings in patients receiving selective transarterial chemoembolization at a tertiary care academic center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The hospital cost accounting system charge master sheet for direct and total costs associated with selective transarterial chemoembolization in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 was queried for each of the four highest volume interventional radiologists at a single institution. There were 517 cases (range, 83-150 per physician) performed; direct costs incurred relating to care before, during, and after the procedure with respect to labor, supply, and equipment fees were calculated. RESULTS: A median of 48 activity codes were charged per selective transarterial chemoembolization from five cost centers, represented by the angiography suite, units for care before and after the procedure, pharmacy, and observation floors. The average direct cost of selective transarterial chemoembolization did not significantly differ among operators at $9,126.94, $8,768.77, $9,027.33, and $8,909.75 (P = .31). Intraprocedural costs accounted for 82.8% of total direct costs and provided the greatest degree in cost variability ($7,268.47-$7,691.27). The differences in intraprocedural expense among providers were not statistically significant (P = .09), even when separated into more specific procedure-related labor and supply costs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost accounting systems could effectively be interrogated as a method for calculating direct costs associated with selective transarterial chemoembolization. The greatest source of expenditure and variability in cost among providers was shown to be intraprocedural labor and supplies, although the effect did not appear to be operator dependent.

Interval inset of TRAM flaps in immediate breast reconstruction: a technical refinement.

PURPOSE: Healthy, viable mastectomy skin is a critical factor in the outcome of immediate breast reconstruction. Unfortunately, mastectomy skin viability can be problematic and intraoperative assessment is unreliable. For this reason, we have modified our approach to immediate transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap (TRAM) reconstruction. Instead of completing the reconstruction with a definitive inset at the time of the mastectomy, the TRAM flap is left intact and buried beneath the mastectomy skin for 3 to 5 days. This falls within the normal period of postoperative hospitalization, and at this point, the viability of the mastectomy skin is clear. Ischemic skin is debrided and replaced with healthy TRAM skin, and nipple reconstruction can be performed at the time of this interval inset. The purpose of this study was to review a large case series of patients who underwent an interval inset of their TRAM flap in the setting of immediate skin-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: Retrospective chart data were obtained for all TRAM patients who underwent immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction by a single surgeon during a 5-year period. Data were collected on procedures, complications, margin status, and number of immediate versus delayed nipple reconstructions. RESULTS: There were 63 patients who underwent immediate TRAM reconstruction with interval inset of the flap. This included 25 bilateral cases, for a total of 89 flaps. Interval insets were performed an average of 3.9 days after the TRAM. Twenty-seven percent (17/63) required replacement of nonviable mastectomy skin with TRAM skin and had no nipple reconstruction; 4.8% (3/63) had additional skin taken because of residual tumor close to or at the mastectomy margins. Seventy-three percent of patients (46/63) had a nipple reconstruction with minimal or no mastectomy skin loss. CONCLUSION: We present the interval inset of TRAM flaps during the normal period of postoperative hospitalization as a technical refinement to optimize cosmetic outcomes. Mastectomy skin viability can be more easily assessed and necrotic or ischemic skin replaced with TRAM skin as needed. This avoids the need for prolonged dressing changes or a compromised aesthetic result from skin loss. When there is no major skin loss, the nipple reconstruction can be performed concurrently with the inset. These refinements optimize the appearance of the reconstructed breast and reduce the need for future surgeries. In addition, the surgical oncologist has the opportunity to excise close or positive margins as indicated by pathologic findings. Thus, the benefits of the interval inset of TRAM flaps are shared by the reconstructive surgeon, the surgical oncologist, and most importantly, the patient.