Regardless of the thermal ablation modality used, margins larger than 5 mm are critical for local tumor control, with no LTP noted for margins over 10 mm. Unlike RF ablation, the efficiency of MW ablation was not affected for perivascular tumors.

Purpose To compare currently available non-three-dimensional methods (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], European Association for Study of the Liver [EASL], modified RECIST [mRECIST[) with three-dimensional (3D) quantitative methods of the index tumor as early response markers in predicting patient survival after initial transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). Materials and Methods This was a retrospective single-institution HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board–approved study. From November 2001 to November 2008, 491 consecutive patients underwent intraarterial therapy for liver cancer with either conventional TACE or TACE with drug-eluting beads. A diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was made in 290 of these patients. The response of the index tumor on pre- and post-TACE magnetic resonance images was assessed retrospectively in 78 treatment-naïve patients with HCC (63 male; mean age, 63 years ± 11 [standard deviation]). Each response assessment method (RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECIST [vRECIST] and quantitative EASL [qEASL]) was used to classify patients as responders or nonresponders by following standard guidelines for the uni- and bidimensional measurements and by using the formula for a sphere for the 3D measurements. The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test was performed for each method to evaluate its ability to help predict survival of responders and nonresponders. Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard ratio models were used to identify covariates that had significant association with survival. Results The uni- and bidimensional measurements of RECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3, 1.0; P = .09), mRECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0; P = .05), and EASL (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .75) did not show a significant difference in survival between responders and nonresponders, whereas vRECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3, 1.0; P = .04), qEASL (Vol) (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3, 0.9; P = .02), and qEASL (%) (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.60; P < .001) did show a significant difference between these groups. Conclusion The 3D-based imaging biomarkers qEASL and vRECIST were tumor response criteria that could be used to predict patient survival early after initial TACE and enabled clear identification of nonresponders.

Higher tumor grade and tumor burden prognosticated shorter HPFS and OS. TARE had a higher hazard ratio for OS than TACE. There were no significant differences in HPFS among embolotherapy modalities.

A marked increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer has been shown in Shiraz. Also, the marked increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer in the 40-60-year-old age group shown in the present study necessitates a more detailed work-up in younger age group patients.

No abstract