Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases:Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although microwave ablation (MWA) has a low complication rate and good efficacy for small-size (≤ 3 cm) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), local control decreases with increasing size. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining interest as a potential means to treat intermediate-size CRLM and might be less susceptible to increasing volume. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MWA to SBRT in patients with unresectable, intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM. Methods: In this two-arm, multicentre phase II/ III randomized controlled trial, 68 patients with 1–3 unresectable, intermediate-size CRLM suitable for both MWA and SBRT, will be included. Patients will be treated with MWA or SBRT as randomised. The Primary endpoint is local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) at 1 year (intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), local control (LC) and procedural morbidity and mortality and assessment of pain and quality of life. Discussion: Current guidelines lack clear recommendations for the local treatment of liver only intermediate-size, unresectable CRLM and studies comparing curative intent SBRT and thermal ablation are scarce. Although safety and feasibility to eradicate tumours ≤ 5 cm have been established, both techniques suffer from lower LTPFS and LC rates for larger-size tumours. For the treatment of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM clinical equipoise has been reached. We have designed a two-armed phase II/ III randomized controlled trial directly comparing SBRT to MWA for unresectable CRLM 3–5 cm. Level of Evidence : Level 1, phase II/ III Randomized controlled trial. Trial Registration: NCT04081168, September 9th 2019. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]</p

Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases:Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Although microwave ablation (MWA) has a low complication rate and good efficacy for small-size (≤ 3 cm) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), local control decreases with increasing size. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining interest as a potential means to treat intermediate-size CRLM and might be less susceptible to increasing volume. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MWA to SBRT in patients with unresectable, intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM. Methods: In this two-arm, multicentre phase II/ III randomized controlled trial, 68 patients with 1–3 unresectable, intermediate-size CRLM suitable for both MWA and SBRT, will be included. Patients will be treated with MWA or SBRT as randomised. The Primary endpoint is local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) at 1 year (intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), local control (LC) and procedural morbidity and mortality and assessment of pain and quality of life. Discussion: Current guidelines lack clear recommendations for the local treatment of liver only intermediate-size, unresectable CRLM and studies comparing curative intent SBRT and thermal ablation are scarce. Although safety and feasibility to eradicate tumours ≤ 5 cm have been established, both techniques suffer from lower LTPFS and LC rates for larger-size tumours. For the treatment of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM clinical equipoise has been reached. We have designed a two-armed phase II/ III randomized controlled trial directly comparing SBRT to MWA for unresectable CRLM 3–5 cm. Level of Evidence : Level 1, phase II/ III Randomized controlled trial. Trial Registration: NCT04081168, September 9th 2019. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]</p

Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation Compared to Systemic Chemotherapy and to Partial Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To assess safety and outcome of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as compared to systemic chemotherapy and partial hepatectomy (PH) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies with multivariate analysis and/or matching were included. Guidelines from National Guideline Clearinghouse and Guidelines International Network were assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The search revealed 3530 records; 328 were selected for full-text review; 48 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 2 randomized studies, 26 comparative observational studies, 2 guideline-articles and 10 case series; in addition 13 guidelines were evaluated. Literature to assess the effectiveness of ablation was limited. RFA + systemic chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone. PH was superior to RFA alone but not to RFA + PH or to MWA. Compared to PH, RFA showed fewer complications, MWA did not. Outcomes were subject to residual confounding since ablation was only employed for unresectable disease. The results from the EORTC-CLOCC trial, the comparable survival for ablation + PH versus PH alone, the potential to induce long-term disease control and the low complication rate argue in favour of ablation over chemotherapy alone. Further randomized comparisons of ablation to current-day chemotherapy alone should therefore be considered unethical. Hence, the highest achievable level of evidence for unresectable CRLM seems reached. The apparent selection bias from previous studies and the superior safety profile mandate the setup of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to surgery

The Added Value of Transcatheter CT Hepatic Angiography (CTHA) Image Guidance in Percutaneous Thermal Liver Ablation: An Experts’ Opinion Pictorial Essay

With the rapidly evolving field of image-guided tumor ablation, there is an increasing demand and need for tools to optimize treatment success. Known factors affecting the success of (non-)thermal liver ablation procedures are the ability to optimize tumor and surrounding critical structure visualization, ablation applicator targeting, and ablation zone confirmation. A recent study showed superior local tumor progression-free survival and local control outcomes when using transcatheter computed tomography hepatic angiography (CTHA) guidance in percutaneous liver ablation procedures. This pictorial review provides eight clinical cases from three institutions, MD Anderson (Houston, TX, USA), Gustave Roussy (Paris, France), and Amsterdam UMC (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), with the intent to demonstrate the added value of real-time CTHA guided tumor ablation for primary liver tumors and liver-only metastatic disease. The clinical illustrations highlight the ability to improve the detectability of the initial target liver tumor(s) and identify surrounding critical vascular structures, detect ‘vanished’ and/or additional tumors intraprocedurally, differentiate local tumor progression from non-enhancing scar tissue, and promptly detect and respond to iatrogenic hemorrhagic events. Although at the cost of adding a minor but safe intervention, CTHA-guided liver tumor ablation minimizes complications of the actual ablation procedure, reduces the number of repeat ablations, and improves the oncological outcome of patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, we recommend adopting CTHA as a potential quality-improving guiding method within the (inter)national standards of practice

Consensus guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in image-guided tumor ablation: results of the SIO and DATECAN initiative

International audienceThere is currently no consensus regarding preferred clinical outcome measures following image-guided tumor ablation or clear definitions of oncologic end points. This consensus document proposes standardized definitions for a broad range of oncologic outcome measures with recommendations on how to uniformly document, analyze, and report outcomes. The initiative was coordinated by the Society of Interventional Oncology in collaboration with the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-Event End Points in Cancer Trials, or DATECAN, group. According to predefined criteria, based on experience with clinical trials, an international panel of 62 experts convened. Recommendations were developed using the validated three-step modified Delphi consensus method. Consensus was reached on when to assess outcomes per patient, per session, or per tumor; on starting and ending time and survival time definitions; and on time-to-event end points. Although no consensus was reached on the preferred classification system to report complications, quality of life, and health economics issues, the panel did agree on using the most recent version of a validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire. This article provides a framework of key opinion leader recommendations with the intent to facilitate a clear interpretation of results and standardize worldwide communication. Widespread adoption will improve reproducibility, allow for accurate comparisons, and avoid misinterpretations in the field of interventional oncology research. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Liddell in this issue

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration:NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017

Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of Local Ablative Therapies

Pancreatic cancer is typically characterized by its aggressive tumor growth and dismal prognosis. Approximately 30% of patients with pancreatic cancer present with locally advanced disease, broadly defined as having a tumor-to-artery interface &gt;180°, having an unreconstructable portal vein or superior mesenteric vein and no signs of metastatic disease. These patients are currently designated to palliative systemic chemotherapy, though median overall survival remains poor (approximately 11 months). Therefore, several innovative local therapies have been investigated as new treatment options for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). This article provides an overview of available data with regard to morbidity and oncological outcome of novel local therapies for LAPC