PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Radiology· 2014Q1

Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria—A 10-Year Update

Muneeb Ahmed, Luigi Solbiati, Christopher L. Brace, David J. Breen et al.

Short summary

A 10-year update proposes a standardized framework for reporting image-guided tumor ablation, covering therapy classification, procedure terms, imaging guidance, findings, technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results to improve communication and comparison across diverse technologies.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Image-guided tumor ablation requires standardized terminology and reporting criteria due to diverse technologies.
  • The updated framework covers classification, procedure terms, imaging guidance, and findings.
  • Standardized reporting extends to technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results.
  • Adherence to recommendations aims to improve communication precision and technology comparison.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

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. Online supplemental material is available for this article .

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Radiology, 2014 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Hepatology

HepatologyMedicine