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).

The field of interventional oncology with use of image-guided tumor ablation requires standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison between treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, and thermal therapies, such as radiofrequency (RF), laser, microwave, ultrasound, and cryoablation. This document provides a framework that will hopefully facilitate the clearest communication between investigators and will provide the greatest flexibility in comparison between the many new, exciting, and emerging technologies. An appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy, including classification of therapies and procedure terms, appropriate descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology to define imaging and pathologic findings, are outlined. Methods for standardizing the reporting of follow-up findings and complications and other important aspects that require attention when reporting clinical results are addressed. It is the group's intention that adherence to the recommendations will facilitate achievement of the group's main objective: improved precision

No abstract

Six existing minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of primary and secondary malignant hepatic tumors--radio-frequency ablation, microwave ablation, laser ablation, cryoablation, ethanol ablation, and chemoembolization--are reviewed and debated by noted authorities from six institutions from around the world. All of the authors currently believe that surgery remains the treatment of choice for patients with resectable hepatic tumors. However, the clinical results of each of the minimally invasive techniques presented have exceeded those obtained with conventional chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Thus, for nonsurgical patients, these techniques are becoming standard independent or adjuvant therapies. In addition, with continued improvement in technology and increasing clinical experience, one or more of these minimally invasive techniques may soon challenge surgical resection as the treatment of choice for patients with limited hepatic tumor.