Search

Patient selection for image-guided thermal ablation of liver metastases has to be taken in a multidisciplinary tumor board given the extreme complexity of cancer metastatic disease, and the numerous treatment options offered to oligometastatic patient today. The role of image-guided thermal ablation increases over years in the treatment of liver metastases. In order to fulfill the expected outcomes which are to have a local control rate equivalent to surgery, interventional oncologist have to take every measure that will help when treating most challenging metastases including image guidance, anesthesia, respiration monitoring, ablation technique, confirmation software that can favor positive outcomes, and in some way to render challenging metastases easy to treat.

Funding Information: Filipe Veloso Gomes has received research grants from Terumo; educational grants from Terumo, Medtronic, Guerbet; speaker honoraria from Bayer, Guerbet, Medtronic, Roche. Thierry-de-Baere has received consulting fees from Astra-Zeneca, Boston-Scientific, Guerbet, Medtronic and Terumo. Gontran Verset has received honoraria for lectures from Terumo, BTG, Bayer. Élia Coimbra—no conflicts of interest Gerardo Tovar-Felice has received a research grant from Terumo. Katerina Malagari has received honoraria for lectures from Merit Medical, BTG, Boston Scientific, Terumo. Jordi Bruix has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Arqule, Astra-Medimmune, Basilea, Bayer-Shering Pharma, Bio-Alliance, BMS, BTG- Biocompatibles, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Kowa, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano, Novartis, Polaris, Quirem, Roche, Sirtex, Sanofi, Terumo; honararia for lectures from Bayer, Eisai, BTG/Boston Scientific, Sirtex, Terumo, Ipsen, Astra-Zeneca. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s). Purpose: To evaluate survival, efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), through a pooled analysis of patients with BCLC 0, A and B HCC stages, treated with polyethylene glycol drug eluting microspheres (PEG-DEM) TACE. Materials and Methods: Patients from 3 retrospective and 2 prospective registries were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumour response and safety were evaluated. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of OS. Results: A total of 580 patients (72.1% males, mean age 66.9 ± 10.3 years) were included. 43.5% had BCLC A, and 41.0% BCLC B disease stage, and 85.8% were Child–Pugh class A. Complete and partial response (mRECIST or RECIST1.1) were achieved in 60.14% and 27.11% of patients, with overall response and disease control rates of 87.30% and 94.60%, respectively. Median OS was 50.8 months for the total population, and 61.2 and 38.1 months for BCLC 0 + A and BCLC B patients, respectively. Median PFS for the total population, BCLC 0 + A and BCLC B groups was 15.6, 21.6 and 12.7 months, respectively. Conclusions: This multicentric pooled analysis confirmed efficacy and safety of PEG-DEM TACE, with a median OS of 50.8 months. publishersversion epub_ahead_of_print

International audience; There is currently no consensus regarding preferred clinical outcome measures following image-guided tumor ablation or clear definitions of oncologic end points. This consensus document proposes standardized definitions for a broad range of oncologic outcome measures with recommendations on how to uniformly document, analyze, and report outcomes. The initiative was coordinated by the Society of Interventional Oncology in collaboration with the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-Event End Points in Cancer Trials, or DATECAN, group. According to predefined criteria, based on experience with clinical trials, an international panel of 62 experts convened. Recommendations were developed using the validated three-step modified Delphi consensus method. Consensus was reached on when to assess outcomes per patient, per session, or per tumor; on starting and ending time and survival time definitions; and on time-to-event end points. Although no consensus was reached on the preferred classification system to report complications, quality of life, and health economics issues, the panel did agree on using the most recent version of a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire. This article provides a framework of key opinion leader recommendations with the intent to facilitate a clear interpretation of results and standardize worldwide communication. Widespread adoption will improve reproducibility, allow for accurate comparisons, and avoid misinterpretations in the field of interventional oncology research. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Liddell in this issue.

According to the literature, prophylactic consolidation of proximal femur lytic metastasis the is recommended when the Mirels' score is above 8. Osteoplasty (cementoplasty of proximal femur) alone provides inadequate consolidation. Various mini-invasive technics, augmented osteoplasties, have been proposed for better long-term consolidation. The aim of this review is to detail the augmented osteoplasty techniques described in the literature and to report their safeties and efficacies to prevent pathological fracture of the proximal femur. A PubMed research found 8 studies that evaluated augmented osteoplasty of the proximal femur in cancer patients. All devices demonstrate adequate safety and low rate of secondary pathological fractures.

There is currently no consensus regarding preferred clinical outcome measures following image-guided tumor ablation or clear definitions of oncologic end points. This consensus document proposes standardized definitions for a broad range of oncologic outcome measures with recommendations on how to uniformly document, analyze, and report outcomes. The initiative was coordinated by the Society of Interventional Oncology in collaboration with the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-Event End Points in Cancer Trials, or DATECAN, group. According to predefined criteria, based on experience with clinical trials, an international panel of 62 experts convened. Recommendations were developed using the validated three-step modified Delphi consensus method. Consensus was reached on when to assess outcomes per patient, per session, or per tumor; on starting and ending time and survival time definitions; and on time-to-event end points. Although no consensus was reached on the preferred classification system to report complications, quality of life, and health economics issues, the panel did agree on using the most recent version of a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire. This article provides a framework of key opinion leader recommendations with the intent to facilitate a clear interpretation of results and standardize worldwide communication. Widespread adoption will improve reproducibility, allow for accurate comparisons, and avoid misinterpretations in the field of interventional oncology research. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Liddell in this issue.

Image-guided tumor ablation has become a well-established hallmark of local cancer therapy. The breadth of options available in this growing field increases the need for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison among treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (eg, ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, thermal therapies (eg, radiofrequency, laser, microwave, focused ultrasound, and cryoablation) and newer ablative modalities such as irreversible electroporation. This updated consensus document provides a framework that will facilitate the clearest communication among investigators regarding ablative technologies. An appropriate vehicle is proposed for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy including classification of therapies, procedure terms, descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology for imaging and pathologic findings. Methods are addressed for standardizing reporting of technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results. As noted in the original document from 2003, adherence to the recommendations will improve the precision of communications in this field, leading to more accurate comparison of technologies and results, and ultimately to improved patient outcomes. Online supplemental material is available for this article .