Purpose: This systematic review aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of the literature on existing computational models for radiofrequency and microwave thermal liver ablation planning and compare their accuracy. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. Characteristics of the computational model and validation method of the included articles were retrieved. Results: The literature search identified 780 articles, of which 35 were included. A total of 19 articles focused on simulating radiofrequency ablation (RFA) zones, and 16 focused on microwave ablation (MWA) zones. Out of the 16 articles simulating MWA, only 2 used in vivo experiments to validate their simulations. Out of the 19 articles simulating RFA, 10 articles used in vivo validation. Dice similarity coefficients describing the overlap between in vivo experiments and simulated RFA zones varied between 0.418 and 0.728, with mean surface deviations varying between 1.1 mm and 8.67 mm. Conclusion: Computational models to simulate ablation zones of MWA and RFA show considerable heterogeneity in model type and validation methods. It is currently unknown which model is most accurate and best suitable for use in clinical practice.

To minimize the risk of local tumor progression after thermal ablation of liver malignancies, complete tumor ablation with sufficient ablation margins is a prerequisite. This has resulted in ablation margin quantification to become a rapidly evolving field. The aim of this systematic review is to give an overview of the available literature with respect to clinical studies and technical aspects potentially influencing the interpretation and evaluation of ablation margins. The Medline database was reviewed for studies on radiofrequency and microwave ablation of liver cancer, ablation margins, image processing and tissue shrinkage. Studies included in this systematic review were analyzed for qualitative and quantitative assessment methods of ablation margins, segmentation and co-registration methods, and the potential influence of tissue shrinkage occurring during thermal ablation. 75 articles were included of which 58 were clinical studies. In most clinical studies the aimed minimal ablation margin (MAM) was ≥ 5 mm. In 10/31 studies, MAM quantification was performed in 3D rather than in three orthogonal image planes. Segmentations were performed either semi-automatically or manually. Rigid and non-rigid co-registration algorithms were used about as often. Tissue shrinkage rates ranged from 7% to 74%. There is a high variability in ablation margin quantification methods. Prospectively obtained data and a validated robust workflow are needed to better understand the clinical value. Interpretation of quantified ablation margins may be influenced by tissue shrinkage, as this may cause underestimation.

The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of ablation margin quantification using a standardized scanning protocol during thermal ablation (TA) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and a rigid registration algorithm. Secondary objectives were to determine the inter- and intra-observer variability of tumor segmentation and quantification of the minimal ablation margin (MAM). Twenty patients who underwent thermal ablation for HCC were included. There were thirteen men and seven women with a mean age of 67.1 ± 10.8 (standard deviation [SD]) years (age range: 49.1-81.1 years). All patients underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography examination under general anesthesia directly before and after TA, with preoxygenated breath hold. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography examinations were analyzed by radiologists using rigid registration software. Registration was deemed feasible when accurate rigid co-registration could be obtained. Inter- and intra-observer rates of tumor segmentation and MAM quantification were calculated. MAM values were correlated with local tumor progression (LTP) after one year of follow-up. Co-registration of pre- and post-ablation images was feasible in 16 out of 20 patients (80%) and 26 out of 31 tumors (84%). Mean Dice similarity coefficient for inter- and intra-observer variability of tumor segmentation were 0.815 and 0.830, respectively. Mean MAM was 0.63 ± 3.589 (SD) mm (range: -6.26-6.65 mm). LTP occurred in four out of 20 patients (20%). The mean MAM value for patients who developed LTP was -4.00 mm, as compared to 0.727 mm for patients who did not develop LTP. Ablation margin quantification is feasible using a standardized contrast-enhanced computed tomography protocol. Interpretation of MAM was hampered by the occurrence of tissue shrinkage during TA. Further validation in a larger cohort should lead to meaningful cut-off values for technical success of TA.

Purpose. After radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), pre- and postinterventional contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images are usually qualitatively interpreted to determine technical success, by eyeballing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of quantitative assessment, using a nonrigid CT-CT coregistration algorithm. Materials and Methods. 25 patients treated with RFA for HCC between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively included. Semiautomated coregistration of pre- and posttreatment CECT was performed independently by two radiologists. In scans with a reliable registration, the tumor and ablation area were delineated to identify the side and size of narrowest RFA margin. In addition, qualitative assessment was performed independently by two other radiologists to determine technical success and the anatomical side and size of narrowest margin. Interobserver agreement rates were determined for both methods, and the outcomes were compared with occurrence of local tumor progression (LTP). Results. CT-CT coregistration was technically feasible in 18/25 patients with almost perfect interobserver agreement for quantitative analysis (κ = 0.88). The interobserver agreement for qualitative RFA margin analysis was κ = 0.64. Using quantitative assessment, negative ablative margins were found in 12/18 patients, with LTP occurring in 8 of these patients. In the remaining 6 patients, quantitative analysis demonstrated complete tumor ablation and no LTP occurred. Conclusion. Feasibility of quantitative RFA margin assessment using nonrigid coregistration of pre- and postablation CT is limited, but appears to be a valuable tool in predicting LTP in HCC patients (p=0.013).

The combination treatment regimen of thermal ablation (TA) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has gained a place in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) lesions > 3 cm unsuitable for surgery. Despite a high heterogeneity in the currently used treatment protocols, the pooled results of combined treatments seem to outperform those of TA or TACE alone. TACE preceding TA has been studied extensively, while results of the reverse treatment sequence are lacking. In this retrospective cohort study we compared the two treatment sequences. 38 patients (median age: 68.5 yrs (range 40-84), male: 34, liver cirrhosis: 33, early stage HCC: 21, intermediate stage HCC: 17) were included in two tertiary referral centers, of whom 27 were treated with TA and adjuvant TACE (TA + TACE). The other 11 patients received TA with neoadjuvant TACE (TACE + TA). Overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP) and local tumor progression (LTP) free survival were determined for the entire cohort and compared between the two treatment sequences. The median OS of all patients was 52.7 months and the median time to LTP was 11.5 months (censored for liver transplantation). No differences were found with respect to OS between the two treatment sequences. Median time to LTP for TACE + TA was 23.6 months and 8.1 months for TA + TACE (p = 0.19). No statistical differences were found for OS, TTP and time to LTP between patients treated with TA combined with neoadjuvant or adjuvant TACE.

Purpose To investigate the performance of two microwave ablation (MWA) systems regarding ablation volume, ablation shape and variability. Materials and Methods In this ex vivo study, the Emprint and Amica MWA systems were used to ablate porcine livers at 4 different settings of time and power (3 and 5 minutes at 60 and 80 Watt). In total, 48 ablations were analysed for ablation size and shape using Vitrea Advanced Visualization software after acquisition of a 7T MRI scan. Results Emprint ablations were smaller (11,1 vs. 21,1 mL p < 0.001), more spherical (sphericity index of 0.89 vs. 0.59 p < 0.001) and showed less variability than Amica ablations. In both systems, longer ablation time and higher power resulted in significantly larger ablation volumes. Conclusion Emprint ablations were more spherical, and the results showed a lower variability than those of Amica ablations. This comes at the price of smaller ablation volumes.