A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Pretreatment evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas with poor conspicuity on conventional ultrasonography. | LitMetric

Pretreatment evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas with poor conspicuity on conventional ultrasonography.

Korean J Radiol

Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 135-710, Korea. ; Department of Radiology, Kangwon National University College of Medicine, Chuncheon 200-722, Korea.

Published: June 2014

Objective: To determine whether pretreatment evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) is effective for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with poor conspicuity on conventional ultrasonography (US).

Materials And Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent was waived. From June 2008 to July 2011, 82 patients having HCCs (1.2 ± 0.4 cm) with poor conspicuity on planning US for RFA were evaluated with CEUS prior to percutaneous RFA. We analyzed our database, radiologic reports, and US images in order to determine whether the location of HCC candidates on planning US coincide with that on CEUS. To avoid incomplete ablation, percutaneous RFA was performed only when HCC nodules were identified on CEUS. The rate of technical success was assessed. The cumulative rate of local tumor progression was estimated with the use of the Kaplan-Meier method (mean follow-up: 24.0 ± 13.0 months).

Results: Among 82 patients, 73 (89%) HCCs were identified on CEUS, whereas 9 (11%) were not. Of 73 identifiable HCCs on CEUS, the location of HCC on planning US corresponded with that on CEUS in 64 (87.7%), whereas the location did not correspond in 9 (12.3%) HCCs. Technical success was achieved for all 73 identifiable HCCs on CEUS in a single (n = 72) or two (n = 1) RFA sessions. Cumulative rates of local tumor progression were estimated as 1.9% and 15.4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively.

Conclusion: Pretreatment evaluation with CEUS is effective for percutaneous RFA of HCCs with poor conspicuity on conventional US.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772254PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.5.754DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

poor conspicuity
16
pretreatment evaluation
12
conspicuity conventional
12
percutaneous rfa
12
ceus
9
evaluation contrast-enhanced
8
contrast-enhanced ultrasonography
8
percutaneous radiofrequency
8
radiofrequency ablation
8
conventional ultrasonography
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!