Search

To investigate the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy (RS) versus standard-of-care surgical resection (SR).A multisite, retrospective analysis of treatment-naïve patients who underwent either RS or SR was performed. The inclusion criteria were solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤8 cm in size, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Cohort performance status of 0-1, and absence of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic disease. Target tumor and overall progression, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival rates were assessed. Outcomes were censored for liver transplantation.A total of 123 patients were included (RS, 57; SR, 66). Tumor size, Child-Pugh class, albumin-bilirubin score, platelet count, and fibrosis stage were significantly different between cohorts (P ≤ .01). Major adverse events (AEs), defined as grade ≥3 per the Clavien-Dindo classification, occurred in 0 patients in the RS cohort vs 13 (20%) patients in the SR cohort (P .001). Target tumor progression occurred in 3 (5%) patients who underwent RS and 5 (8%) patients who underwent SR. Overall progression occurred in 19 (33%) patients who underwent RS and 21 (32%) patients who underwent SR. The median overall TTP was 21.9 and 29.4 months after RS and SR, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.5-28.2 and 18.5-40.3, respectively; P = .03). Overall TTP subgroup analyses showed no difference between treatment cohorts with fibrosis stages 3-4 (P = .26) and a platelet count of150 × 10RS and SR were performed in different patient populations, which limits comparison. RS approached SR outcomes, with a lower incidence of major AEs, in patients who were not eligible for hepatectomy.

The new interventional radiology (IR) pathways have generated much discussion with articles and editorials pointing out perceived advantages and disadvantages compared to the current pathways. To briefly review, under the new system, there are three pathways to enter IR: the integrated (INT) IR residency, the independent (IND) IR residency, and the early specialization in interventional radiology (ESIR) program. The pathways have been designed to provide maximum flexibility to programs for implementation and to radiology residents for planning their subspecialty training. As a result, there are many potential permutations for these training programs, and understanding the variety of options can be a challenge at first. We offer three potential solutions, based on the different circumstances or requirements a department might face. The first two solutions involve integrated programs created through newly funded and converted diagnostic radiology slots, respectively. The third involves establishing ESIR and IND programs only. Hopefully, the examples provided will be useful for those currently planning for the future of their IR training programs.

Bowel ischemia can complicate treatment of type II endoleak with liquid or semiliquid agents such as n-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) if nontarget embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) occurs. The current report describes four cases of type II endoleak in which the IMA was the main outflow vessel and was prophylactically occluded with embolization coils before NBCA injection into the endoleak nidus. The purpose was to prevent unintentional embolization of the NBCA into IMA branches. If feasible, protective IMA coil occlusion should be considered in type II endoleaks with IMA outflow in cases of NBCA embolization.