Image-guided tumor ablation has become a well-established hallmark of local cancer therapy. The breadth of options available in this growing field increases the need for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison among treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (eg, ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, thermal therapies (eg, radiofrequency, laser, microwave, focused ultrasound, and cryoablation) and newer ablative modalities such as irreversible electroporation. This updated consensus document provides a framework that will facilitate the clearest communication among investigators regarding ablative technologies. An appropriate vehicle is proposed for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy including classification of therapies, procedure terms, descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology for imaging and pathologic findings. Methods are addressed for standardizing reporting of technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results. As noted in the original document from 2003, adherence to the recommendations will improve the precision of communications in this field, leading to more accurate comparison of technologies and results, and ultimately to improved patient outcomes.

ablation in comparison with other available treatments (97,98).

These guidelines update previous guidance published in 2005. They have been revised by a group who are members of the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society with endorsement from the clinical committees of the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Society for Endocrinology, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (and its Surgical Specialty Associations), the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and others. The authorship represents leaders of the various groups in the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society, but a large amount of work has been carried out by other specialists, many of whom attended a guidelines conference in May 2009. We have attempted to represent this work in the acknowledgements section. Over the past few years, there have been advances in the management of neuroendocrine tumours, which have included clearer characterisation, more specific and therapeutically relevant diagnosis, and improved treatments. However, there remain few randomised trials in the field and the disease is uncommon, hence all evidence must be considered weak in comparison with other more common cancers.

Objectives Previous attempts at meta-analysis and systematic review have not provided clear recommendations for the clinical application of thermal ablation in metastatic colorectal cancer. Many authors believe that the probability of gathering randomised controlled trial (RCT) data is low. Our aim is to provide a consensus document making recommendations on the appropriate application of thermal ablation in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Methods This consensus paper was discussed by an expert panel at The Interventional Oncology Sans Frontières 2013. A literature review was presented. Tumour characteristics, ablation technique and different clinical applications were considered and the level of consensus was documented.Eur Radiol (2015) Results Specific recommendations are made with regard to metastasis size, number, and location and ablation technique. Mean 31 % 5-year survival post-ablation in selected patients has resulted in acceptance of this therapy for those with technically inoperable but limited liver disease and those with limited liver reserve or co-morbidities that render them inoperable.Conclusions In the absence of RCT data, it is our aim that this consensus document will facilitate judicious selection of the patients most likely to benefit from thermal ablation and provide a unified interventional oncological perspective for the use of this technology. Key Points• Best results require due consideration of tumour size, number, volume and location.• Ablation technology, imaging guidance and intraprocedural imaging assessment must be optimised.• Accepted applications include inoperable disease due to tumour distribution or inadequate liver reserve.• Other current indications include concurrent co-morbidity, patient choice and the test-of-time approach.• Future applications may include resectable disease, e.g. for small solitary tumours.

Chr. Hansen had no input into any aspect of study design or conduct of the trial. Furthermore, Chr. Hansen will have no input into data analysis or subsequent reporting of the trial results. PCC has received consulting fees from Chr. Hansen, but not in relation to this trial.