4.7 Review

Precision Imaging Guidance in the Era of Precision Oncology: An Update of Imaging Tools for Interventional Procedures

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144028

关键词

interventional radiology; imaging guidance; oncological therapy; embolization; biopsy; percutaneous treatments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interventional oncology (IO) procedures are highly popular in interventional radiology (IR) and are crucial for the diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care of cancer patients. Vascular approaches involve embolization and direct injection of chemotherapeutics into tumor-feeding vessels, while non-vascular approaches include percutaneous image-guided biopsies and various ablation techniques.
Interventional oncology (IO) procedures have become extremely popular in interventional radiology (IR) and play an essential role in the diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care of oncologic patients through new and safe procedures. IR procedures can be divided into two main groups: vascular and non-vascular. Vascular approaches are mainly based on embolization and concomitant injection of chemotherapeutics directly into the tumor-feeding vessels. Percutaneous approaches are a type of non-vascular procedures and include percutaneous image-guided biopsies and different ablation techniques with radiofrequency, microwaves, cryoablation, and focused ultrasound. The use of these techniques requires precise imaging pretreatment planning and guidance that can be provided through different imaging techniques: ultrasound, computed tomography, cone-beam computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. These imaging modalities can be used alone or in combination, thanks to fusion imaging, to further improve the confidence of the operators and the efficacy and safety of the procedures. This article aims is to provide an overview of the available IO procedures based on clinical imaging guidance to develop a targeted and optimal approach to cancer patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据