4.4 Article

Percutaneous Cryoablation for the Treatment of Recurrent Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Safety, Early-Term Efficacy, and Predictors of Local Recurrence

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 213-221

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.09.027

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine safety and early-term efficacy of CT-guided cryoablation for treatment of recurrent mesothelioma and assess risk factors for local recurrence. Materials and Methods: During the period 2008-2012, 24 patients underwent 110 cryoablations for recurrent mesothelioma tumors in 89 sessions. Median patient age was 69 years (range, 48-82 y). Median tumor size was 30 mm (range, 9-113 mm). Complications were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v4.0). Recurrence was diagnosed on CT or positron emission tomography/CT by increasing size, nodular enhancement, or hypermetabolic activity and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine covariates associated with local tumor recurrence. Results: Median duration of follow-up was 14.5 months. Complications occurred in 8 of 110 cryoablations (7.3%). All but 1 complication were graded CTCAE v4.0 1 or 2. No procedure-related deaths occurred. Freedom from local recurrence was observed in 100% of cases at 30 days, 92.5% at 6 months, 90.8% at 1 year, 87.3% at 2 years, and 73.7% at 3 years. Tumor recurrence was diagnosed 4.5-24.5 months after cryoablation (mean 5.7 months). Risk of tumor recurrence was associated with a smaller ablative margin from the edge of tumor to iceball ablation margin (multivariate hazard ratio 0.68, CI 0.48-0.95, P = .024). Conclusions: CT-guided cryoablation is safe for local control of recurrent mesothelioma, with a low rate of complications and promising early-term efficacy. A smaller ablative margin may predispose to tumor recurrence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available