Image-guided tumorablation: Standardization ofterminology and reporting criteria-A 10-year update

Muneeb Ahmed, Luigi Solbiati, Christopher L. Brace, David J. Breen, Matthew R. Callstrom, J. William Charboneau, Min Hua Chen, Byung Ihn Choi, Thierry De Baère, Gerald D. Dodd, Damian E. Dupuy, Debra A. Gervais, David Gianfelice, Alice R. Gillams, Fred T. Lee, Edward Leen, Riccardo Lencioni, Peter J. Littrup, Tito Livraghi, David S. LuJohn P. Mcgahan, Maria Franca Meloni, Boris Nikolic, Philippe L. Pereira, Ping Liang, Hyunchul Rhim, Steven C. Rose, Riad Salem, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Stephen B. Solomon, Michael C. Soulen, Masatoshi Tanaka, Thomas J. Vogl, Bradford J. Wood, S. Nahum Goldberg

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    355 Citations (Scopus)

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1691-1705.e4
    JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
    Volume25
    Issue number11
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

    Cite this