Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 12, pp 1891–1898 | Cite as

Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation Using a New Electrode with an Electromagnetic Position Sensor for Hepatic Tumors Difficult to Place an Electrode: A Preliminary Clinical Study

  • Tae Wook Kang
  • Min Woo LeeEmail author
  • Kyoung Doo Song
  • Hyunchul Rhim
  • Hyo Keun Lim
  • Wonseok Kang
  • Kyunga Kim
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether a new electrode embedded with an electromagnetic position sensor (EMPS) improves the technical feasibility of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with hepatic tumors difficult to place an electrode under ultrasonography (US) guidance and to assess short-term therapeutic efficacy and safety.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Between January 2015 and December 2016, 10 patients (7 men and 3 women; age range 52–75 years) with a single hepatic tumor (median 1.4 cm; range 1.1–1.8 cm) difficult to place an electrode under US guidance were enrolled. The technical feasibility of targeting and overlapping ablation during the RFA procedure was graded using a four-point scale and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test according to the use of EMPS. In addition, the rates of technical success, local tumor progression (LTP), and major complications were assessed.

Results

The use of the new RF electrode with EMPS significantly improved the technical feasibility of targeting and overlapping ablation (p = 0.002 and p = 0.003, respectively). After treatment, the technical success rate was 100%. LTP was not found in any patient during the follow-up period (median 8 months; range 4–22 months). No major procedure-related complications occurred.

Conclusions

The technical feasibility of percutaneous RFA improves with the use of this RF electrode embedded with an EMPS. Short-term therapeutic efficacy and safety after RFA using the electrode were promising in patients with hepatic tumors difficult to place an electrode under US guidance.

Keywords

Liver Ultrasonography Radiofrequency ablation Electromagnetic position sensor Needle tracking 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

EM

Electromagnetic

EMPS

Electromagnetic position sensor

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

LTP

Local tumor progression

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

RFA

Radiofrequency ablation

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Joon Hyok Lee (STARmed, Goyang, South Korea) for his technical assistance.

Financial Support

Financial support and the investigational RF ablation device for this study were provided by STARmed (Goyang, Korea). However, the authors had complete control of the data and information submitted for publication, which was unbiased by the industry.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 7289 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2012;379(9822):1245–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shady W, Petre EN, Gonen M, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of colorectal cancer liver metastases: factors affecting outcomes—a 10-year experience at a single center. Radiology. 2016;278(2):601–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee MW. Fusion imaging of real-time ultrasonography with CT or MRI for hepatic intervention. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(4):227–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim J, Yoon CJ, Seong NJ, Jeong SH, Kim JW. Fluoroscopy-guided radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective comparison with ultrasound-guided ablation. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(9):1009–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rempp H, Unterberg J, Hoffmann R, et al. Therapy monitoring of magnetic resonance-guided radiofrequency ablation using T1- and T2-weighted sequences at 1.5 T: reliability of estimated ablation zones. Invest Radiol. 2013;48(6):429–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulier S, Ni Y, Jamart J, Ruers T, Marchal G, Michel L. Local recurrence after hepatic radiofrequency coagulation: multivariate meta-analysis and review of contributing factors. Ann Surg. 2005;242(2):158–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim YS, Lee WJ, Rhim H, Lim HK, Choi D, Lee JY. The minimal ablative margin of radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (>2 and <5 cm) needed to prevent local tumor progression: 3D quantitative assessment using CT image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):758–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Minami Y, Chung H, Kudo M, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: value of virtual CT sonography with magnetic navigation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(6):W335–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song KD, Lee MW, Rhim H, Cha DI, Chong Y, Lim HK. Fusion imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinomas not visible on conventional ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(5):1141–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Appelbaum L, Mahgerefteh SY, Sosna J, Goldberg SN. Image-guided fusion and navigation: applications in tumor ablation. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;16(4):287–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Min JH, Lim HK, Lim S, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of very-early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma inconspicuous on fusion imaging with B-mode US: value of fusion imaging with contrast-enhanced US. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20(1):61–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hakime A, Deschamps F, De Carvalho EG, Barah A, Auperin A, De Baere T. Electromagnetic-tracked biopsy under ultrasound guidance: preliminary results. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35(4):898–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung EM, Friedrich C, Hoffstetter P, et al. Volume navigation with contrast enhanced ultrasound and image fusion for percutaneous interventions: first results. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e33956.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tomonari A, Tsuji K, Yamazaki H, et al. Feasibility of the virtual needle tracking system for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2013;43(12):1352–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kang TW, Lee MW, Choi SH, et al. A novel electrode with electromagnetic tip tracking in ultrasonography-guided radiofrequency ablation: a phantom, ex vivo, and in vivo experimental study. Invest Radiol. 2015;50(2):81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahmed M, Solbiati L, Brace CL, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria—a 10-year update. Radiology. 2014;273(1):241–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rhim H, Choi D, Kim YS, Lim HK, Choe BK. Ultrasonography-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas: a feasibility scoring system for planning sonography. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75(2):253–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee MW, Rhim H, Cha DI, Kim YJ, Lim HK. Planning US for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small hepatocellular carcinomas (1–3 cm): value of fusion imaging with conventional US and CT/MR images. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(7):958–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kang TW, Lim HK, Lee MW, et al. Long-term therapeutic outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for subcapsular versus nonsubcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched study. Radiology. 2016;280(1):300–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kang TW, Lim HK, Lee MW, Kim YS, Choi D, Rhim H. Perivascular versus nonperivascular small HCC treated with percutaneous RF ablation: retrospective comparison of long-term therapeutic outcomes. Radiology. 2014;270(3):888–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kang TW, Lim HK, Lee MW, Kim YS, Choi D, Rhim H. First-line radiofrequency ablation with or without artificial ascites for hepatocellular carcinomas in a subcapsular location: local control rate and risk of peritoneal seeding at long-term follow-up. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(12):e641–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatesan AM, Kadoury S, Abi-Jaoudeh N, et al. Real-time FDG PET guidance during biopsies and radiofrequency ablation using multimodality fusion with electromagnetic navigation. Radiology. 2011;260(3):848–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krucker J, Xu S, Venkatesan A, et al. Clinical utility of real-time fusion guidance for biopsy and ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(4):515–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakazawa T, Kokubu S, Shibuya A, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation between local tumor progression after ablation and ablative margin. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(2):480–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hakime A, Barah A, Deschamps F, et al. Prospective comparison of freehand and electromagnetic needle tracking for US-guided percutaneous liver biopsy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(11):1682–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dodd GD 3rd, Frank MS, Aribandi M, Chopra S, Chintapalli KN. Radiofrequency thermal ablation: computer analysis of the size of the thermal injury created by overlapping ablations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(4):777–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tae Wook Kang
    • 1
  • Min Woo Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kyoung Doo Song
    • 1
  • Hyunchul Rhim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hyo Keun Lim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wonseok Kang
    • 3
  • Kyunga Kim
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Health Sciences and Technology, SAIHSTSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Statistics and Data Center, Samsung Biomedical Research InstituteSamsung Medical CenterSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations