Purpose: Evaluation of the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic conditions on ablation zone volumes (AZV) after microwave ablation (MWA). Methods: Retrospective analysis of 38 MWAs of therapy-naïve liver tumours performed with the NeuWave PR probe. Ablations were performed either in the ‘standard mode’ (65 W, 10 min) or in the ‘surgical mode’ (95 W, 1 min, then 65 W, 10 min). AZV measurements were obtained from contrast-enhanced computed tomography immediately post-ablation. Results: AZVs in the ‘standard mode’ were smaller than predicted by the manufacturer (length 3.6 ± 0.6 cm, 23% below 4.7 cm; width 2.7 ± 0.6, 23% below 3.5 cm). Ablation zone past the tip was limited to 6 mm in 28/32 ablations. Differences in AZV between the ‘surgical mode’ and ‘standard mode’ were not significant (15.6 ± 7.8 mL vs. 13.9 ± 8.8 mL, p = 0.6). AZVs were significantly larger in case of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) (n = 19) compared to metastasis (n = 19; 17.8 ± 9.9 mL vs. 10.1 ± 5.1 mL, p = 0.01) and in non-perivascular tumour location (n = 14) compared to perivascular location (n = 24, 18.7 ± 10.4 mL vs. 11.7 ± 6.1 mL, p = 0.012), with both factors remaining significant in two-way analysis of variance (HCC vs. metastasis: p = 0.02; perivascular vs. non-perivascular tumour location: p = 0.044). Conclusion: Larger AZVs can be expected in cases of HCCs compared with metastases and in non-perivascular locations. Using the ‘surgical mode’ does not increase AZV significantly.

Purpose: To investigate the added value of diagnostic abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR). Methods: Eighty-two consecutive patients (median age, 69 years; range, 45–86 years) with BCR underwent Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT with low-dose nonenhanced (ne) whole-body CT and diagnostic ceCT. Imaging results were retrospectively reviewed by two readers (R1, R2) for diagnostic certainty, local recurrence, lymph node metastasis (LNM) and bone metastasis. Interobserver agreement was assessed. Histopathology served as reference standard in 7, imaging and clinical follow-up in 65 and clinical follow-up alone in 10 patients. Results: Certain local recurrence, LNM and bone metastasis diagnoses increased substantially from ceCT (R1: 5%/18%/32%; R2: 37%/50%/82%) to nePET/CT (R1: 78%/87%/93%; R2: 81%/87%/95%) for both readers, but the difference between nePET/CT and cePET/CT (R1: 77%/96%/92%; R2: 89%/94%/96%) was marginal. Interobserver agreement was minimal with ceCT (Krippendorff’s alpha: 0.04–0.26), substantial with nePET/CT (0.60–0.86) and best with cePET/CT (0.76–0.86). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for local recurrence for R1/R2 were 0.60/0.65 for ceCT, 0.81/0.79 for nePET/CT and 0.81/0.82 for cePET/CT. AUCs for LNMs for R1/R2 were 0.67/0.77 for ceCT, 0.91/0.82 for nePET/CT and 0.92/0.87 for cePET/CT. AUCs for BMs for R1/R2 were 0.60/0.53 for ceCT, 0.93/0.84 for nePET/CT and 0.93/0.86 for cePET/CT. Conclusion: Diagnostic abdominal ceCT increases the diagnostic certainty and interobserver agreement in Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT in BCR of prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of cePET/CT is significantly better than ceCT alone but not nePET/CT.