Breast cancer represents a leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the advances in systemic therapies, the prognosis for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis (BCLM) remains poor. Especially in case of failure or cessation of systemic treatments, surgical resection for BCLMs has been considered as the treatment standard despite a lack of robust evidence of benefit. However, due to the extent and location of disease and physical condition, the number of patients with BCLM who are eligible for surgery is limited. Palliative locoregional treatments of liver metastases (LM) include transarterial embolization (TAE), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT). Percutaneous thermal ablation methods, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), are considered potentially curative local treatment options. They are less invasive, less expensive and have fewer contraindications and complication rates than surgery. Because conventional ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided single-probe thermal ablation is limited by tumor size, multi-probe stereotactic radiofrequency ablation (SRFA) with intraoperative image fusion for immediate, reliable judgment has been developed in order to treat large and multiple tumors within one session. This review focuses on the different minimally invasive local and locoregional treatment options for BCLM and attempts to describe their current and future role in the multidisciplinary treatment setting.

Thermal ablation is an emerging, potentially curative approach in treating primary and metastatic liver cancer. Different technologies are available, with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) being the most widely used. Regardless of the technique, destruction of the entire tumor, including an adequate safety margin, is key. In conventional single-probe US- or CT-guided thermal ablation, the creation of such large necrosis zones is often hampered by technical limitations, especially for large tumors (i.e., >2–3 cm). These limitations have been overcome by stereotactic RFA (SRFA): a multiple needle approach with 3D treatment planning and precise stereotactic needle placement combined with intraprocedural image fusion of pre- and post-interventional CT scans for verification of treatment success. With these sophisticated tools and advanced techniques, the spectrum of locally curable liver malignancies can be dramatically increased. Thus, we strongly believe that stereotactic thermal ablation can become a cornerstone in the treatment of liver malignancies, as it offers all the benefits of a minimally invasive method while providing oncological outcomes comparable to surgery. This article provides an overview of current stereotactic techniques for thermal ablation, summarizes the available clinical evidence for this approach, and discusses its advantages.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to evaluate 2D and 3D image quality of high-resolution ultralow-dose CT images of the craniofacial bone for navigated surgery using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in comparison with standard filtered backprojection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS. A formalin-fixed human cadaver head was scanned using a clinical reference protocol at a CT dose index volume of 30.48 mGy and a series of five ultralow-dose protocols at 3.48, 2.19, 0.82, 0.44, and 0.22 mGy using FBP and ASIR at 50% (ASIR-50), ASIR at 100% (ASIR-100), and MBIR. Blinded 2D axial and 3D volume-rendered images were compared with each other by three readers using top-down scoring. Scores were analyzed per protocol or dose and reconstruction. All images were compared with the FBP reference at 30.48 mGy. A nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS. For 2D images, the FBP reference at 30.48 mGy did not statistically significantly differ from ASIR-100 at 3.48 mGy, ASIR-100 at 2.19 mGy, and MBIR at 0.82 mGy. MBIR at 2.19 and 3.48 mGy scored statistically significantly better than the FBP reference (p = 0.032 and 0.001, respectively). For 3D images, the FBP reference at 30.48 mGy did not statistically significantly differ from all reconstructions at 3.48 mGy; FBP and ASIR-100 at 2.19 mGy; FBP, ASIR-100, and MBIR at 0.82 mGy; MBIR at 0.44 mGy; and MBIR at 0.22 mGy. CONCLUSION. MBIR (2D and 3D) and ASIR-100 (2D) may significantly improve subjective image quality of ultralow-dose images and may allow more than 90% dose reductions.

Background: Robotic-based guidance systems are becoming increasingly capable of assisting in needle placement during interventional procedures. Despite these technical advances, less sophisticated low-cost guidance devices promise to enhance puncture accuracy compared with the traditional freehand technique. Purpose: To compare the in vitro accuracy and feasibility of two different aiming devices for computed-tomography (CT)-guided punctures. Methods: A total of 560 CT-guided punctures were performed by using either a robotic (Perfint Healthcare: Maxio) or a novel low-cost patient-mounted system (Medical Templates AG: Puncture Cube System [PCS]) for the placement of Kirschner wires in a plexiglass phantom with different slice thicknesses. Needle placement accuracy as well as procedural time were assessed. The Euclidean (ED) and normal distances (ND) were calculated at the entry and target point. Results: Using the robotic device, the ND at the target for 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.75 mm and 5 mm slice thickness were 1.28 mm (SD ± 0.79), 1.25 mm (SD ± 0.81), 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.00) and 1.35 mm (SD ± 1.03). Using the PCS, the ND at the target for 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm slices were 3.84 mm (SD ± 1.75), 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.31) and 4.41 mm (SD ± 2.11), respectively. With all comparable slice thicknesses, the robotic device was significantly more accurate compared to the low-cost device (p < 0.001). Needle placement with the PCS resulted in lower intervention time (mean, 158.83 s [SD ± 23.38] vs. 225.67 s [SD ± 17.2]). Conclusion: Although the robotic device provided more accurate results, both guidance systems showed acceptable results and may be helpful for interventions in difficult anatomical regions and for those requiring complex multi-angle trajectories.