Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27452478›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2016

Analysis of iodinated contrast delivered during thermal ablation: is material trapped in the ablation zone?

Po-Hung Wu, Chris L Brace

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Radiofrequency and microwave ablation in a porcine liver model: non-contrast CT and ultrasound radiologic-pathologic correlation.International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Po-Hung WuDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Engineering Dr, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Chris L BraceDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Engineering Dr, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

Funding

Periodic Contrast-Enhanced CT With HYPR Reconstruction For Ablation MonitoringR01CA149379 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BRACE, CHRISTOPHER L · 2010 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA149379
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intra-procedural contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) has been proposed to evaluate treatment efficacy of thermal ablation. We hypothesized that contrast material delivered concurrently with thermal ablation may become trapped in the ablation zone, and set out to determine whether such an effect would impact ablation visualization. CECT images were acquired during microwave ablation in normal porcine liver with: (A) normal blood perfusion and no iodinated contrast, (B) normal perfusion and iodinated contrast infusion or (C) no blood perfusion and residual iodinated contrast. Changes in CT attenuation were analyzed from before, during and after ablation to evaluate whether contrast was trapped inside of the ablation zone. Visualization was compared between groups using post-ablation contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Attenuation gradients were calculated at the ablation boundary and background to quantitate ablation conspicuity. In Group A, attenuation decreased during ablation due to thermal expansion of tissue water and water vaporization. The ablation zone was difficult to visualize (CNR  =  1.57  ±  0.73, boundary gradient  =  0.7  ±  0.4 HU mm(-1)), leading to ablation diameter underestimation compared to gross pathology. Group B ablations saw attenuation increase, suggesting that iodine was trapped inside the ablation zone. However, because the normally perfused liver increased even more, Group B ablations were more visible than Group A (CNR  =  2.04  ±  0.84, boundary gradient  =  6.3  ±  1.1 HU mm(-1)) and allowed accurate estimation of the ablation zone dimensions compared to gross pathology. Substantial water vaporization led to substantial attenuation changes in Group C, though the ablation zone boundary was not highly visible (boundary gradient  =  3.9  ±  1.1 HU mm(-1)). Our results demonstrate that despite iodinated contrast being trapped in the ablation zone, ablation visibility was highest when contrast is delivered intra-procedurally. Therefore, CECT may be feasible for real-time thermal ablation monitoring.

Indexed as

Hyperthermia, InducedAnimalsCatheter AblationContrast MediaIodineLiverSwineContrast MediaIodine

Identifiers

PMID27452478
PMCPMC5361223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.