MRI–transrectal US fusion–guided irreversible electroporation is a safe and effective procedure for patients with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer with promising midterm results,... BackgroundIrreversible electroporation (IRE) is a nonthermal ablative method based on the formation of nanoscale defects in cell membranes leading to cell death. Clinical experience with the techni...
3 May 2024 in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Anticoagulation (AC) is the guideline-recommended treatment for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE); however, it remains unclear whether mechanical thrombectomy provides benefit over AC alone. The PEERLESS II study aims to evaluate outcomes in intermediate-risk PE patients randomized to treatment with large-bore mechanical thrombectomy and AC vs AC alone. PEERLESS II is an international randomized controlled trial enrolling up to 1200 patients with intermediate-risk PE and additional clinical risk factors from up to 100 sites. Treatment is randomized 1:1 to large-bore mechanical thrombectomy with the FlowTriever System (Inari Medical) and AC or AC alone. Outcomes will be evaluated for up to 3 months, with safety events independently adjudicated. The primary end point is a hierarchical composite win ratio of (1) all-cause mortality by 30 days, (2) clinical deterioration (earlier of discharge or 30 days), (3) all-cause hospital readmission by 30 days, (4) bailout therapy (earlier of discharge or 30 days), and (5) Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score of ≥1 at the 48-hour visit. Secondary end points include all-cause and PE-related mortality (30-day and 90-day), all-cause and PE-related readmission (30-day and 90-day), major bleeding (30-day and 90-day), clinical deterioration (earlier of discharge or 30 days), bailout (earlier of discharge or 30 days), right ventricle-to-left ventricle diameter ratio (48-hour visit), mMRC dyspnea score (48-hour, 1-month, and 3-month visits), quality of life using Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (1-month and 3-month visits), 6-minute walk distance (1-month visit), and post-PE impairment diagnosis (3-month visit). PEERLESS II will inform the understanding of mechanical thrombectomy treatment for intermediate-risk PE and provide evidence for consideration in future treatment guidelines.
To evaluate the technique, dosimetry, dose-volume-histograms (DVHs) and acute toxicity for CyberKnife® boost irradiation instead of intra-cervical brachytherapy in patients with cervical cancer. Eleven who were not suitable for brachytherapy with FIGO stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation. After fiducial implantation, T2 contrast-enhanced planning MRI and CT scans at 2-mm slice thickness were collected in the treatment position. The clinical target volume was defined as cervix + macroscopic residual tumour on MRI. Five fractions of 6 Gy each were prescribed to the target volume with a covering single dose 6 Gy. DVH parameters were evaluated for the target and organs at risk. Acute toxicity was documented once a week. DmeanPTV ranged from 33.6-40 Gy, median 36.7 Gy with a coverage of the PTV calculated to 100% of the prescribed dose ranging from 93.0-99.3% (median 97.7%). For the PTV the median CN was 0.78 (range, 0.66 to 0.87) and the median CI was 1.28 (range 1.15 to 1.52). Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was mild. There was no grade 3 or higher GI and GU toxicity. After 6 months of follow up, there were no local recurrences. For the complete treatment, a median EQD2 to 1 cc and 2 cc of the bladder wall was 98.8 Gy and 87.1 Gy, respectively. Median EQD2 to 1 cc and 2 cc of the rectal wall was 72.3 Gy and 64 Gy, respectively, correlating with a risk < 10% for Grade 2-4 late toxicity. CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery in patients with cervical cancer provides excellent target coverage with steep dose gradients toward normal tissues and safe DVH parameters for bladder, rectum and sigmoid. Acute toxicity was mild. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the oncological equality.
30 January 2006 in CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology