Aim: to evaluate safety, efficacy, and tumor response with IRE in patients with unresectable HCC Study data: 11 patients with 18 tumors Conclusions: 72% tumors were completely ablated, 93% success for lesions ≤3 cm; overall, IRE is a safe and feasible technique for local ablation of HCC, particularly for tumors <3 cm
Aim: to evaluate safety and efficacy of IRE from preclinical and clinical studies Study data: published studies and abstracts Conclusions: IRE is safe and effective and offers advantage over conventional thermal ablation due to absence of heat sink effect and preservation of the acellular elements
Aim: to evaluate safety and short-term outcome with IRE in patients with perivascular malignant liver tumors Study data: 28 patients with 65 tumors; 79% treated with open approach and 21% percutaneous Conclusions: IRE is safe for treatment of perivascular hepatic tumors; overall morbidity was 3%, no mortality, 1.9% rate of tumor persistence and 5.7% rate of tumor recurrence
Aim: to evaluate safety and efficacy of IRE for hepatic tumors Study data: 44 patients; 40 patients with metastatic lesions and 10 patients with HCC Conclusions: IRE is safe for treating hepatic tumors that are in proximity to vital structures, initial success achieved in 100% patients; recurrence free survival at 12 months was 59.5%
Aim: to evaluate effects of “learning curve” and experience on outcome with IRE Study data: 150 patients; 3 groups of 50 patients each, based on chronology Conclusions: IRE is a safe and effective alternative to conventional ablation; over time, the proficiency to treat complex lesions improves significantly, with a demonstrable learning curve of at least 5 cases to become proficient
Aim: to assess the rate of BC after IRE of hepatic tumors located <1 cm from major bile ducts Study data: 11 patients with 22 hepatic lesions within 1 cm of major hepatic duct Conclusions: IRE offers safe treatment option for centrally located liver tumors with margins adjacent to major bile ducts where thermal ablation techniques are contraindicated
Aim: to predict usefulness of CEUS in evaluating ablation zones after treatment with IRE Study data: 20 patients were evaluated before and after treatment with IRE Conclusions: IRE causes significant reduction of microcirculation, which is a marker for successful ablation; CEUS is useful and successfully detects these changes in microcirculation after treatment with IRE
Aim: to compare postprocedure pain in patients treated with IRE versus RFA for HCC Study data: 43 patients; 21 patients treated with IRE and 22 with RFA Conclusions: IRE is comparable to RFA with respect to postoperative pain
