Search

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is aimed at interventional radiologists and provides best practices for performing liver regeneration therapies prior to major hepatectomies, including portal vein embolization, double vein embolization and liver venous deprivation. It has been developed by an expert writing group under the guidance of the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee. It encompasses all clinical and technical details required to perform liver regeneration therapies, revising the indications, contra-indications, outcome measures assessed, technique and expected outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: To investigate whether liver venous deprivation (LVD) as simultaneous, portal vein (PVE) and right hepatic vein embolization offers advantages in terms of hypertrophy induction before extended hepatectomy in non-cirrhotic liver., Materials and Methods: Between June 2018 and August 2019, 20 patients were recruited for a prospective, non-randomized study to investigate the efficacy of LVD. After screening of 134 patients treated using PVE alone from January 2015 to August 2019, 14 directly matched pairs regarding tumor entity (cholangiocarcinoma, CC and colorectal carcinoma, CRC) and hypertrophy time (defined as time from embolization to follow-up imaging) were identified. In both treatment groups, the same experienced reader (> 5 years experience) performed imaging-based measurement of the volumes of liver segments of the future liver remnant (FLR) prior to embolization and after the standard clinical hypertrophy interval (~ 30 days), before surgery. Percentage growth of segments was calculated and compared., Results: After matched follow-up periods (mean of 30.5 days), there were no statistically significant differences in relative hypertrophy of FLRs. Mean ± standard deviation relative hypertrophy rates for LVD/PVE were 59 ± 29.6%/54.1 ± 27.6% (p = 0.637) for segments II + III and 48.2 ± 22.2%/44.9 ± 28.9% (p = 0.719) for segments II-IV, respectively., Conclusions: LVD had no significant advantages over the standard method (PVE alone) in terms of hypertrophy induction of the FLR before extended hepatectomy in this study population., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: For local ablation of unresectable tumors, computed tomography-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (CT-HDRBT) is a minimally invasive therapeutic option involving CT-guided catheter placement and high-dose-rate irradiation with iridium-192. Possible complications are related to transcutaneous puncture, retraction of the applicator, and delivery of brachytherapy. To classify CT-HDRBT in comparison with other minimally invasive therapeutic options, it is essential to know the probability of complications and their risk factors. This study therefore aimed at quantifying the occurrence of complications in CT-HDRBT and identifying potential risk factors., Materials and Methods: Over a period of more than 10 years from 2006 to 2017, 1877 consecutive CT-HDRBTs were performed at our center and retrospectively analyzed. In 165 cases, CT-HDRBT was combined with transarterial (chemo-) embolization. Information on complications and potential risk factors was retrospectively retrieved from electronic documentation. Statistical analysis of the data was performed., Results: No complications occurred in 85.6% of the interventions. The most common complications were bleeding (5.6%), infection (2.0%), and prolonged pain (1.5%). Summarized diameter (defined as sum of maximum diameters in axial orientation) of treated tumor lesions (odds ratio 1.008; p < 0.001), target lesion site (odds ratio 1.132; p = 0.033), combined treatment (odds ratio 1.233; p = 0.038), and the presence of biliodigestive anastomosis (BDA) (odds ratio 1.824; p = 0.025) were identified as risk factors., Conclusions: CT-HDRBT is a safe minimally invasive therapeutic option. Summarized diameter of treated tumor lesions, target lesion site, combined treatment, and presence of BDA are risk factors for complications.

Purpose: To validate a split-bolus contrast injection protocol for single-phase CBCT in terms of detectability of hypovascular liver tumors compared to digital subtraction angiography (DSA)., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective, single-center study, 20 consecutive patients with in total 77 hypovascularized tumors referred for intra-arterial therapy received a split-bolus single-phase CBCT. Two readers rated the visibility of the target tumors scheduled for embolization in CBCT and DSA compared to the pre-interventional multiphasic CT or MRI used as reference on a 3-point scoring system (1 = optimal, 3 = not visible) and catheter-associated artifacts (1 = none, 3 = extended). SNR, CNR and contrast values were derived from 37 target tumors in CBCT and MRI. Statistical analysis included the kappa test to determine interrater reliability, the Friedman's test for the inter-modality comparison evaluating tumor visibility in DSA and CBCT as well as for quantitative assessment. Post hoc analysis included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. p values < 0.05 were considered significant., Results: Ninety percentage of target tumors were rated as visible in CBCT and 37.5% in DSA (p < 0.001). 70.1% of pre-interventionally detected hypovascularized tumors were depicted with CBCT and 31.2% by DSA (p < 0.001). 7.8% of known tumors were outside the FOV. Quantitative assessment showed higher image contrasts in CBCT (1.91 ± 7.01) compared to hepatobiliary-phase MRI (0.29 ± 0.14, p = 0.003) and to portal-venous (p.v.) MRI (0.31 ± 0.13, p < 0.001), but higher CNR for MRI (1.18 ± 0.80; 13.92 ± 15.82; 13.79 ± 6.65)., Conclusion: In conclusion, the split-bolus single-phase CBCT detects significantly more hypovascularized liver tumors compared to DSA performed through the proper hepatic artery with high image contrasts., Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based real-time 3-D guidance of TIPSS placement and its positioning compared to standard guiding methods., Materials and Methods: In a prospective, randomized, consecutive study design from 2015 to 2017, we included 21 patients in the CBCT guided group and 15 patients in the ultrasound (US) guided group. The prospective groups were compared in terms of success rate of intervention, portal vein puncture/procedure time, number of puncture attempts and applied dose. We furthermore retrospectively analyzed the last 23 consecutive cases with fluoroscopic guided portal vein puncture in terms of success rate, procedure time and applied dose, as it has been the standard method before US guidance., Results: The median number of puncture attempts (CBCT: n = 2, US: n = 4, p = 0.249) and the mean puncture time (CBCT: 32 ± 45 min, US: 36 ± 45 min, p = 0.515) were not significantly different. There were furthermore no significant differences in the mean time needed for the total TIPSS procedure (CBCT: 115 ± 52 min, US: 112 ± 41 min, fluoroscopy: 110 ± 33 min, p = 0.996). The mean applied dose of the complete procedure also showed no statistically significant differences (CBCT: 563 ± 289 Gy·cm 2 , US: 322 ± 186 Gy·cm 2 , fluoroscopy: 469 ± 352 Gy·cm 2 , p = 0.069). There were no image guidance related complications., Conclusion: Real-time 3-D needle guidance based on CBCT is feasible for TIPSS placement. In terms of puncture attempts, duration and dose, CBCT guidance was not inferior to the control groups and may be a valuable support for interventionists in TIPSS procedures.

Purpose: Portal vein embolization (PVE) is applied in patients with extended oncologic liver disease to induce hyperplasia of the future liver remnant and make resection feasible. Ultrasound (US) guidance is the gold standard for percutaneous portal vein access. This study evaluated feasibility and safety of C-arm cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for needle guidance., Materials and Methods: In 10 patients, puncture was performed under 3D needle guidance in a CBCT data set. Contrast-enhanced (CE) CBCT was generated (n = 7), or native CBCT was registered to pre-examination CE-CT via image fusion (n = 3). Technical success, number of punctures, puncture time (time between CBCT acquisition and successful portal vein access), dose parameters and safety were evaluated. For comparison, 10 patients with PVE under US guidance were analyzed retrospectively. Study and control group were matched for age, BMI, INR, platelets, portal vein anatomy., Results: All interventions were technically successful without intervention-related complications. In the study group, the mean number of puncture attempts was 3.1 ± 2.5. Mean puncture time was 12 min (±10). Mean total dose area product (DAP) was 288 Gy cm 2 (±154). The mean relative share of CBCT-related radiation exposure was 6% (±3). Intervention times and DAP were slightly higher compared to the control group without reaching significance., Conclusion: CBCT-guided PVE is feasible and safe. The relative dose of CBCT is low compared to the overall dose of the intervention. This technique may be a promising approach for difficult anatomic situations that limit the use of US for needle guidance.