Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 39, Issue 11, pp 1668–1671 | Cite as

Irreversible Electroporation of Prostate Cancer: Patient-Specific Pretreatment Simulation by Electric Field Measurement in a 3D Bioprinted Textured Prostate Cancer Model to Achieve Optimal Electroporation Parameters for Image-Guided Focal Ablation

  • Johann Jakob WendlerEmail author
  • Fabian Klink
  • Sven Seifert
  • Frank Fischbach
  • Burkhard Jandrig
  • Markus Porsch
  • Maciej Pech
  • Daniel Baumunk
  • Jens Ricke
  • Martin Schostak
  • Uwe-Bernd Liehr
Letter to the Editor

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) of localized prostate cancer (PCA) for curatively intended treatment is still considered experimental, though first study results confirm its high developmental potential as an organ- and function-preserving focal therapy. Current limitations thus far include exact calculation of the ablation field, congruence between tumor localization and extension of the ablation field, and organ confinement of the ablation field with sparing of structures/organs at risk. Van den Bos et al. [1], for example, described the ablation field as being two-to-three times larger than expected and extending beyond the prostatic capsule into the neurovascular bundle with the corresponding risks of stress incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Two important factors are discussed. For one thing, electric field configuration strongly depends on tissue heterogeneity and conductivity [2]. The aging prostate with PCA is a very inhomogeneous tissue or organ (PCA, nodular...

Keywords

Electrical Impedance Tomography Irreversible Electroporation Electric Field Measurement Image Fusion Algorithm Electric Field Configuration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

AngioDynamics Inc. (NY, USA) supports the current IRENE study [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01967407] by providing the NanoKnife electroporator device and technical maintenance. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Van den Bos W, de Bruin DM, Jurhill RR et al. The correlation between the electrode configuration and histopathology of irreversible electroporation ablations in prostate cancer patients. World J Urol. 2016;34(5):657–64. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1661-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golberg A, Bruinsma BG, Uygun BE, et al. Tissue heterogeneity in structure and conductivity contribute to cell survival during irreversible electroporation ablation by “electric field sinks”. Sci Rep. 2015;16(5):8485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neal RE 2nd, Millar JL, Kavnoudias H, et al. In vivo characterization and numerical simulation of prostate properties for non-thermal irreversible electroporation ablation. Prostate. 2014;74(5):458–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kranjc M, Markelc B, Bajd F, et al. In situ monitoring of electric field distribution in mouse tumor during electroporation. Radiology. 2015;274(1):115–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takagi K, Nanashima A, Abo T, et al. Three-dimensional printing model of liver for operative simulation in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2014;61(136):2315–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Priester A, Natarajan S, Le JD, et al. A system for evaluating magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer using patient-specific 3D printed molds. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2014;2(2):127–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pati F, Gantelius J, Svahn HA. 3D bioprinting of tissue/organ models. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2016;55(15):4650–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knowlton S, Onal S, Yu CH, et al. Bioprinting for cancer research. Trends Biotechnol. 2015;33(9):504–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jung V, Saar M, Grobholz R, et al. Development of a three-dimensional primary prostate cancer cell culture model. Urologe A. 2008;47(9):1199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Priester A, Natarajan S, Le JD, et al. A system for evaluating magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer using patient-specific 3D printed molds. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2014;2(2):127–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korsager AS, Fortunati V, van der Lijn F, et al. The use of atlas registration and graph cuts for prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance images. Med Phys. 2015;42(4):1614–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann Jakob Wendler
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
    Email author
  • Fabian Klink
    • 2
  • Sven Seifert
    • 3
  • Frank Fischbach
    • 4
    • 6
  • Burkhard Jandrig
    • 1
  • Markus Porsch
    • 1
  • Maciej Pech
    • 4
    • 6
  • Daniel Baumunk
    • 1
    • 5
  • Jens Ricke
    • 1
  • Martin Schostak
    • 1
    • 5
  • Uwe-Bernd Liehr
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Urology and Pediatric UrologyUniversity of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringOtto von Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.FuG Elektronik GmbHSchechenGermany
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  5. 5.Working Group for Focal and Microtherapy of the German Society of Urology (AKFM of DGU e.V.)MagdeburgGermany
  6. 6.German Academy of Microtherapy (DAfMT e.V.)MagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations