Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria

S Nahum Goldberg,Clement J Grassi,John F Cardella,J William Charboneau,Gerald D Dodd,Damian E Dupuy,Debra Gervais,Alice R Gillams,Robert A Kane,Fred T Lee,Tito Livraghi,John Mcgahan,David A Phillips,Hyunchul Rhim,Stuart G Silverman

doi:10.1097/01.rvi.0000170858.46668.65

Abstract

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 and communication in this field that lead to more accurate comparison of technologies and results and, ultimately, to improved patient outcomes. The intent of this standardization of terminology is to provide an appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy.

Highlights

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 ablation, and thermal therapies, such as radiofrequency (RF), laser, microwave, ultrasound, and cryoablation
It was acknowledged by the members of the working group that the new field of image-guided tumor ablation required standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison between treatments that use different technologies
The document has been modified in an attempt to align the contents with prior Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) standards and to address additional issues that have been raised by the Technology Assessment Committee

Summary

Introduction

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. It is the group’s intention that adherence to the recommendations will facilitate achievement of the group’s main objective: improved precision and communication in this field that lead to more accurate comparison of technologies and results and, to improved patient outcomes The intent of this standardization of terminology is to provide an appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy. The main objective was “improved precision and communication in this field that leads to more accurate comparison of technologies and results and to improved patient outcomes” [1] It was acknowledged by the members of the working group that the new field of image-guided tumor ablation (a branch of interventional oncology) required standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison between treatments that use different technologies. Inclusion of the term “percutaneous” as a prefix to “image-guided tumor ablation” is often too limiting because it does not reflect the fact that tumor ablation procedures can be performed at laparoscopy, endoscopy, or surgery [8,9]

Methods

Results

Conclusion