Could Monopolar Mode be a Suitable Strategy of Energy Deposition for Performing No-Touch Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Tumor ≤ 5 cm?
- 44 Downloads
We read with great interest the study by Chang et al. . Pursuing their considerable efforts in bringing scientific evidence of usefulness of no-touch ablation concept for the treatment of liver tumors [2, 3], they compared no-touch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of patients bearing hepatocellular carcinoma up 5 cm in size, using multi-monopolar (mM) versus multi-bipolar (mB) modes. While multi-bipolar mode required less number of ablations within shorter overall ablation times, they concluded that either mode could be favorably used for no-touch ablation of HCCs ≤ 5 cm because local tumor progression (LTP)-free survival rates were comparable in both groups.
In our opinion, this apparent cautious conclusion is questionable regarding their results of preclinical and clinical studies. Although difference of LTP rates between the two groups was not statically significant, as authors mentioned, due to retrospective design of the study they did not emitted hypothesis and...
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Olivier Seror is consultant for Olympus/Celon Company, Angiodynamics, General Electric Healthcare Systems and Bayer Healthcare.
This article does not contain studies with human participants for animals by any of the authors.
- 1.Chang W, Lee JM, Lee DH, Yoon JH, Kim YJ, Yoon JH, et al. Comparison of switching bipolar ablation with multiple cooled wet electrodes and switching monopolar ablation with separable clustered electrode in treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192173. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Seror O, Sutter O. RE: should we use a monopolar or bipolar mode for performing no-touch radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors? Clinical practice might have already resolved the matter once and for all. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(4):749–52. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.749.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Seror O. Ablative therapies: advantages and disadvantages of radiofrequency, cryotherapy, microwave and electroporation methods, or how to choose the right method for an individual patient? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(6):617–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2015.04.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Clasen S, Rempp H, Schmidt D, Schraml C, Hoffmann R, Claussen CD, et al. Multipolar radiofrequency ablation using internally cooled electrodes in ex vivo bovine liver: correlation between volume of coagulation and amount of applied energy. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(1):111–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Burdio F, Navarro A, Sousa R, Burdio JM, Guemes A, Gonzalez A, et al. Evolving technology in bipolar perfused radiofrequency ablation: assessment of efficacy, predictability and safety in a pig liver model. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(8):1826–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0131-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Seror O, N’Kontchou G, Tin-Tin-Htar M, Barrucand C, Ganne N, Coderc E, et al. Radiofrequency ablation with internally cooled versus perfused electrodes for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(5):718–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.01.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar