Introduction: The ESMO and ECIO-ESOI consensus guidelines vary in their recommendations regarding the use of ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose ([¹⁸F]FDG) PET/CT in the follow-up after thermal ablation in patients with colorectal liver metastases. This is partly because studies providing data on long-term benefits of [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT are lacking. Therefore, a simulation model was developed to examine how follow-up with [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT impacts treatment planning, health and cost outcomes. Methods: For an illustrative Dutch cohort, lifetime health and cost outcomes were simulated to assess the cost-effectiveness of performing a single additional [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT. Patients followed a standard surveillance schedule consisting of three-monthly serum CEA and contrast-enhanced CT, plus [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT 3–4 months after thermal ablation. Therapy could be repeated downstream the care pathway. Quality-of-life and survival estimates were based on disease stage and age. Costs were determined from a healthcare perspective incorporating costs related to diagnostics and treatments. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were followed. Results: Health benefits of additional [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT were negligible, incremental QALYs < 0.001, whereas costs increased by €1,277, mainly due to the additional imaging. This lack of health benefits can be explained by the small subset of simulated patients (<5 %) in whom [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT affected treatment planning. Discussion: Additional [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT 3–4 months after thermal ablation is unlikely to be cost-effective. More research is needed to determine if using [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in subgroups of patients, or at alternative time points, is cost-effective. This requires collecting more (extensive) follow-up data across multiple centres to reflect heterogeneity between hospitals’ clinical practices.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the biodistribution of (super-)selective trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) with holmium-166 microspheres (¹⁶⁶Ho-MS), when administered as adjuvant therapy after RFA of HCC 2–5 cm. The objective was to establish a treatment volume absorbed dose that results in an absorbed dose of ≥ 120 Gy on the hyperemic zone around the ablation necrosis (i.e., target volume). Methods: In this multicenter, prospective dose-escalation study in BCLC early stage HCC patients with lesions 2–5 cm, RFA was followed by (super-)selective infusion of ¹⁶⁶Ho-MS on day 5–10 after RFA. Dose distribution within the treatment volume was based on SPECT-CT. Cohorts of up to 10 patients were treated with an incremental dose (60 Gy, 90 Gy, 120 Gy) of ¹⁶⁶Ho-MS to the treatment volume. The primary endpoint was to obtain a target volume dose of ≥ 120 Gy in 9/10 patients within a cohort. Results: Twelve patients were treated (male 10; median age, 66.5 years (IQR, [64.3–71.7])) with a median tumor diameter of 2.7 cm (IQR, [2.1–4.0]). At a treatment volume absorbed dose of 90 Gy, the primary endpoint was met with a median absorbed target volume dose of 138 Gy (IQR, [127–145]). No local recurrences were found within 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Adjuvant (super-)selective infusion of ¹⁶⁶Ho-MS after RFA for the treatment of HCC can be administered safely at a dose of 90 Gy to the treatment volume while reaching a dose of ≥ 120 Gy to the target volume and may be a favorable adjuvant therapy for HCC lesions 2–5 cm. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03437382.

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of ablation margin quantification using a standardized scanning protocol during thermal ablation (TA) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and a rigid registration algorithm. Secondary objectives were to determine the inter- and intra-observer variability of tumor segmentation and quantification of the minimal ablation margin (MAM). Materials and methods: Twenty patients who underwent thermal ablation for HCC were included. There were thirteen men and seven women with a mean age of 67.1 ± 10.8 (standard deviation [SD]) years (age range: 49.1–81.1 years). All patients underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography examination under general anesthesia directly before and after TA, with preoxygenated breath hold. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography examinations were analyzed by radiologists using rigid registration software. Registration was deemed feasible when accurate rigid co-registration could be obtained. Inter- and intra-observer rates of tumor segmentation and MAM quantification were calculated. MAM values were correlated with local tumor progression (LTP) after one year of follow-up. Results: Co-registration of pre- and post-ablation images was feasible in 16 out of 20 patients (80%) and 26 out of 31 tumors (84%). Mean Dice similarity coefficient for inter- and intra-observer variability of tumor segmentation were 0.815 and 0.830, respectively. Mean MAM was 0.63 ± 3.589 (SD) mm (range: -6.26–6.65 mm). LTP occurred in four out of 20 patients (20%). The mean MAM value for patients who developed LTP was -4.00 mm, as compared to 0.727 mm for patients who did not develop LTP. Conclusion: Ablation margin quantification is feasible using a standardized contrast-enhanced computed tomography protocol. Interpretation of MAM was hampered by the occurrence of tissue shrinkage during TA. Further validation in a larger cohort should lead to meaningful cut-off values for technical success of TA.

Purpose: To investigate the performance of two microwave ablation (MWA) systems regarding ablation volume, ablation shape and variability. Materials and Methods: In this ex vivo study, the Emprint and Amica MWA systems were used to ablate porcine livers at 4 different settings of time and power (3 and 5 minutes at 60 and 80 Watt). In total, 48 ablations were analysed for ablation size and shape using Vitrea Advanced Visualization software after acquisition of a 7T MRI scan. Results: Emprint ablations were smaller (11,1 vs. 21,1 mL p < 0.001), more spherical (sphericity index of 0.89 vs. 0.59 p < 0.001) and showed less variability than Amica ablations. In both systems, longer ablation time and higher power resulted in significantly larger ablation volumes. Conclusion: Emprint ablations were more spherical, and the results showed a lower variability than those of Amica ablations. This comes at the price of smaller ablation volumes.