4.5 Article

Radiofrequency ablation for eradication of pulmonary tumor in rabbits

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 99, Issue 2, Pages 265-271

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/jsre.2001.6208

Keywords

animal experiment; pulmonary neoplasmas; magnetic resonance imaging; minimally invasive surgery; radiofrequency ablation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as an alternative for surgery in clinical oncology. This animal experiment was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of RFA in the treatment of pulmonary tumor. Methods. Eighteen rabbits with pulmonary implantation of VX2 tumors were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 12) was treated with RFA by using a cooled-tip electrode technique. Group B (n = 6) received sham operation. The therapeutic efficacy was evaluated by survival rate, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), postmortem microangiography, and histology. Results. All animals in group B died within 3 months after tumor implantation. Tumor eradication was achieved in 9 of 12 rabbits (75.0%) in group A, of which 4 rabbits survived longer than 3 months free of disease and another 5 rabbits were found free of viable tumor when sacrificed. One rabbit was subjected to incomplete tumor ablation and two rabbits suffered from local tumor relapse and/or lung metastasis. The 3-month survival rate of RFA-treated rabbits was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than that of control rabbits. The typical MRI appearances of the acute RFA lesion consisted of five characteristic concentric zones, which corresponded to central needle track (zone A), tumor coagulation (zone B), pulmonary parenchyma coagulation (zone C), peripheral hemorrhage (zone D), and inflammatory layer (zone E) on histology. Conclusions. Eradication of pulmonary tumor could be achieved with current RFA technique in rabbits. MRI is a useful modality for assessment of lung tumor ablation. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available