Percutaneous Renal Tumor Ablation

Radiation Exposure During Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation

James C. McEachen, Shuai Leng, Thomas D. Atwell, Matthew K. Tollefson, Jeremy L. Friese, Zhen Wang, Mohammad H Murad, Grant D. Schmit

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Once reserved solely for non-surgical cases, percutaneous ablation is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for a wider array of patients with small renal masses and the radiation risk needs to be better defined as this transition continues. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of our renal tumor ablation database revealed 425 patients who underwent percutaneous ablation for treatment of 455 renal tumors over a 5-year time period. Imparted radiation dose information was reviewed for each procedure and converted to effective patient dose and skin dose using established techniques. Statistical analysis was performed with each ablative technique. Results: For the 331 cryoablation procedures, the mean DLP was 6987 mGycm (SD = 2861) resulting in a mean effective dose of 104.7 mSv (SD = 43.5) and the mean CTDIvol was 558 mGy (SD = 439) resulting in a mean skin dose of 563.2 mGy (SD = 344.1). For the 124 RFA procedures, the mean DLP was 3485 mGycm (SD = 1630) resulting in a mean effective dose of 50.3 mSv (SD = 24.0) and the mean CTDIvol was 232 mGy (SD = 149) resulting in a mean skin dose of 233.2 mGy (SD = 117.4). The difference in patient radiation exposure between the two renal ablation techniques was statistically significant (p 

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)233-238
Number of pages6
JournalCardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume39
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

Cryosurgery
Kidney
Skin
Neoplasms
Ablation Techniques
Radiation
Databases
Radiation Exposure
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Ablation
  • Clinical practice
  • CT/CTA
  • Interventional oncology
  • Kidney/renal
  • Radiation
  • Radiofrequency ablation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Percutaneous Renal Tumor Ablation : Radiation Exposure During Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation. / McEachen, James C.; Leng, Shuai; Atwell, Thomas D.; Tollefson, Matthew K.; Friese, Jeremy L.; Wang, Zhen; Murad, Mohammad H; Schmit, Grant D.

In: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 233-238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McEachen, James C. ; Leng, Shuai ; Atwell, Thomas D. ; Tollefson, Matthew K. ; Friese, Jeremy L. ; Wang, Zhen ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Schmit, Grant D. / Percutaneous Renal Tumor Ablation : Radiation Exposure During Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation. In: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. 2016 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 233-238.
@article{07587bd43a8a4c1ab1023125e1353909,
title = "Percutaneous Renal Tumor Ablation: Radiation Exposure During Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation",
abstract = "Introduction: Once reserved solely for non-surgical cases, percutaneous ablation is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for a wider array of patients with small renal masses and the radiation risk needs to be better defined as this transition continues. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of our renal tumor ablation database revealed 425 patients who underwent percutaneous ablation for treatment of 455 renal tumors over a 5-year time period. Imparted radiation dose information was reviewed for each procedure and converted to effective patient dose and skin dose using established techniques. Statistical analysis was performed with each ablative technique. Results: For the 331 cryoablation procedures, the mean DLP was 6987 mGycm (SD = 2861) resulting in a mean effective dose of 104.7 mSv (SD = 43.5) and the mean CTDIvol was 558 mGy (SD = 439) resulting in a mean skin dose of 563.2 mGy (SD = 344.1). For the 124 RFA procedures, the mean DLP was 3485 mGycm (SD = 1630) resulting in a mean effective dose of 50.3 mSv (SD = 24.0) and the mean CTDIvol was 232 mGy (SD = 149) resulting in a mean skin dose of 233.2 mGy (SD = 117.4). The difference in patient radiation exposure between the two renal ablation techniques was statistically significant (p ",
keywords = "Ablation, Clinical practice, CT/CTA, Interventional oncology, Kidney/renal, Radiation, Radiofrequency ablation",
author = "McEachen, {James C.} and Shuai Leng and Atwell, {Thomas D.} and Tollefson, {Matthew K.} and Friese, {Jeremy L.} and Zhen Wang and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Schmit, {Grant D.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00270-015-1169-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "233--238",
journal = "CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "7415-5101",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Percutaneous Renal Tumor Ablation

T2 - Radiation Exposure During Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation

AU - McEachen, James C.

AU - Leng, Shuai

AU - Atwell, Thomas D.

AU - Tollefson, Matthew K.

AU - Friese, Jeremy L.

AU - Wang, Zhen

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Schmit, Grant D.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Introduction: Once reserved solely for non-surgical cases, percutaneous ablation is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for a wider array of patients with small renal masses and the radiation risk needs to be better defined as this transition continues. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of our renal tumor ablation database revealed 425 patients who underwent percutaneous ablation for treatment of 455 renal tumors over a 5-year time period. Imparted radiation dose information was reviewed for each procedure and converted to effective patient dose and skin dose using established techniques. Statistical analysis was performed with each ablative technique. Results: For the 331 cryoablation procedures, the mean DLP was 6987 mGycm (SD = 2861) resulting in a mean effective dose of 104.7 mSv (SD = 43.5) and the mean CTDIvol was 558 mGy (SD = 439) resulting in a mean skin dose of 563.2 mGy (SD = 344.1). For the 124 RFA procedures, the mean DLP was 3485 mGycm (SD = 1630) resulting in a mean effective dose of 50.3 mSv (SD = 24.0) and the mean CTDIvol was 232 mGy (SD = 149) resulting in a mean skin dose of 233.2 mGy (SD = 117.4). The difference in patient radiation exposure between the two renal ablation techniques was statistically significant (p 

AB - Introduction: Once reserved solely for non-surgical cases, percutaneous ablation is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for a wider array of patients with small renal masses and the radiation risk needs to be better defined as this transition continues. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of our renal tumor ablation database revealed 425 patients who underwent percutaneous ablation for treatment of 455 renal tumors over a 5-year time period. Imparted radiation dose information was reviewed for each procedure and converted to effective patient dose and skin dose using established techniques. Statistical analysis was performed with each ablative technique. Results: For the 331 cryoablation procedures, the mean DLP was 6987 mGycm (SD = 2861) resulting in a mean effective dose of 104.7 mSv (SD = 43.5) and the mean CTDIvol was 558 mGy (SD = 439) resulting in a mean skin dose of 563.2 mGy (SD = 344.1). For the 124 RFA procedures, the mean DLP was 3485 mGycm (SD = 1630) resulting in a mean effective dose of 50.3 mSv (SD = 24.0) and the mean CTDIvol was 232 mGy (SD = 149) resulting in a mean skin dose of 233.2 mGy (SD = 117.4). The difference in patient radiation exposure between the two renal ablation techniques was statistically significant (p 

KW - Ablation

KW - Clinical practice

KW - CT/CTA

KW - Interventional oncology

KW - Kidney/renal

KW - Radiation

KW - Radiofrequency ablation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957796709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957796709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00270-015-1169-1

DO - 10.1007/s00270-015-1169-1

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 233

EP - 238

JO - CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 7415-5101

IS - 2

ER -