Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025
Thermal Ablation for the Treatment of Abdominal Tumors
Published on: March 7, 2011
Percutaneous microwave ablation for lung tumors: a retrospective case-control study of conventional CT and C-arm CT
Kepu Du1, Yiming Liu2, Kunpeng Wu2
1Department of Imaging Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Background:
Although conventional computed tomography (cCT) is the mainstream guidance equipment for lung microwave ablation (MWA), C-arm CT can provide 3-dimensional (3D) CT-like images reconstructed from 2-dimensional (2D) digital subtraction angiography (DSA) information within 8 seconds, highlighting its utility as a new guidance tool. This retrospective case-control study was performed to evaluate the clinical performance of percutaneous MWA for lung tumors using cCT and C-arm CT guidance.
Methods:
From April 2015 to April 2020, 101 consecutive patients with solitary lung tumors who underwent percutaneous MWA at our single center (Zhengzhou, China) were divided into 2 groups: the cCT group (n=56), with unarmed puncture, and the C-arm CT group (n=45), with iGuide navigation-assisted puncture. The primary endpoints were technical success, technical efficacy, puncture scoring (PS), and complete ablation (CA) rate. The secondary endpoints were complications, median progression-free survival (mPFS), and median overall survival (mOS).
Results:
The technical success rates were 100% in both the C-arm CT group and cCT group. The technical efficacies were 93.3% and 91.1% in the C-arm CT group and cCT group, respectively, with no statistical difference (P=0.67). The PS (2.9 vs. 2.5, P=0.02), total procedure time (TPT; 39.3 vs. 50.0 min, P<0.001), puncture time (PT; 12.6 vs. 15.7 min, P=0.001), and irradiation effective dose (ED; 15.2 vs. 20.9 mSV, P<0.001) showed significances between patients in the C-arm CT and those in the cCT group. The ablation time (AT; 9.1 vs. 9.6 min, P=0.36), CA rate (93.3% vs. 92.9%, P=0.93), local tumor progression (LTP) rate (11.1% vs. 8.9%, P=0.98), complications, mPFS (9.5 vs. 10.1 months, P=0.52), and mOS (37.9 vs. 38.8 months, P=0.67) showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups.
Conclusions:
C-arm CT guidance is as feasible and effective as cCT for lung tumor MWA, which can increase PS and decrease TPT.
