ArticleJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR2023
Tumor and Ablation Margin Visibility during Cryoablation of Musculoskeletal Tumors: Comparing Intraprocedural PET/CT Images with CT-Only Images.
Article in Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-energy CT fusion imaging improves ice-ball visualization in bone during spinal cryoablation in porcine cadavers.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Unenhanced CT as an Alternative to Contrast-Enhanced CT in Evaluating Renal Cryoablation Zones.Cureus · 2024Article
- Intratumoural immunotherapy plus focal thermal ablation for localized prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare tumor and ice-ball margin visibility on intraprocedural positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and CT-only images and report technical success, local tumor progression, and adverse event rates for PET/CT-guided cryoablation procedures for musculoskeletal tumors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated 20 PET/CT-guided cryoablation procedures performed with palliative and/or curative intent to treat 15 musculoskeletal tumors in 15 patients from 2012 to 2021. Cryoablation was performed using general anesthesia and PET/CT guidance. Procedural images were reviewed to determine the following: (a) whether the tumor borders could be fully assessed on PET/CT or CT-only images; and (b) whether tumor ice-ball margins could be fully assessed on PET/CT or CT-only images. The ability to visualize tumor borders and ice-ball margins on PET/CT images was compared with that on CT-only images.
resultsTumor borders were fully assessable for 100% (20 of 20; 95% CI, 0.83-1) of procedures on PET/CT versus 20% (4 of 20; 95 CI, 0.057-0.44) of procedures on CT only (P < .001). The tumor ice-ball margin was fully assessable in 80% (16 of 20; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94) of procedures using PET/CT versus 5% (1 of 20; 95% CI, 0.0013-0.25) of procedures using CT only (P < .001). Primary technical success was achieved in 75% (15 of 20; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) of procedures. There was local tumor progression in 23% (3/13; 95% CI, 0.050-0.54) of the treated tumors with at least 6 months of follow-up. There were 3 adverse events (1 Grade 3, 1 Grade 2, and 1 Grade 1).
conclusionsPET/CT-guided cryoablation of musculoskeletal tumors can provide superior intraprocedural visualization of the tumor and ice-ball margins compared with that provided by CT alone. Further studies are warranted to confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.