Ablation techniques produce unique tissue effects
Understanding capabilities, limitations of four technologies can optimize outcomes
New York—Optimizing outcomes using focal tumor ablation techniques depends on acquiring a better understanding of the tissue effects of these technologies, according to a recent study.
With that goal in mind, a study was undertaken in a porcine model directly comparing histologic changes in solid organs treated by radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryotherapy, irreversible electroporation (IRE), and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) using the photosensitizer WST-11 (TOOKAD Soluble, Steba Biotech). Overall, the results showed that each of the four methods produced different effects specific to the modality being used and influenced by organ tissue architecture and vascularization.
In the study, each technology was used under image guidance to create multiple ablations in the liver, kidney, and pancreas. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging was performed immediately after treatment and again after 24 hours, and the treated organs from individual animals were removed at 4 or 24 hours for histologic evaluation.
“Increasingly, we are identifying patients with early, small, localized cancers, providing an opportunity for focal treatment of tumors while sparing surrounding normal tissues,” said first author Simon Kimm, MD, clinical fellow in urologic oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “There is a great diversity of energy delivery systems under development, with each capable of eradicating cancer. Our research shows there are clear differences in the tissue effects of these therapies, which may impact how patients respond. In designing trials to evaluate individual techniques, there needs to be an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each technology."
The research marks the first direct comparison of the four modalities, according to Dr. Kimm, who presented the findings at the AUA annual meeting in San Diego.
“Our study shows the procedures invoke different and complex tissue responses, both acutely and at intermediate time points. Describing these technologies only as to whether they cause thermal or non-thermal injury is too simplistic, and we believe better characterizing these effects will help to optimize outcomes and provide benchmarks for assessment of tumor response in clinical trials,” added Dr. Kimm, who worked on the study with principal investigators Jonathan Coleman, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and Avigdor Scherz, PhD, of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues.
Acute tissue necrosis after RFA, cryotherapy
Summarizing the study findings, Dr. Kimm reported that the detailed histologic analyses revealed acute tissue necrosis and collagen denaturation after use of the thermal technologies (RFA and cryotherapy), whereas after VTP and IRE there were well-demarcated areas of hyperemia and hemorrhage followed by progression to coagulative necrosis at 24 hours. Pronounced infiltration of inflammatory cells was noted at 4 hours following cryotherapy, but was not observed in tissues treated by RFA.
Other observations included the presence of a “heat sink” effect after treatment with RFA, resulting in findings of irregular lesion boundaries, and areas of tissue sparing around blood vessels. VTP created sharp areas of complete ablation, while demonstrating treatment effect around blood vessels up to 400 microns in size. RFA, cryotherapy, and IRE ablated all blood vessels within the treatment zone.
The techniques also varied in their extracellular matrix effects as significant collagen denaturation was observed early after RFA and cryotherapy, while collagen architecture was preserved after ablation with IRE and VTP.
Dr. Kimm noted that further studies are needed to determine whether the sparing of smaller vessels and collagen after VTP is clinically significant in the recovery of tissues after ablation. In addition, an ongoing study is investigating whether VTP, like cryotherapy, invokes an immune response that may have value for enhancing tumor immunity.
The Thompson Family Foundation provided funding for the study.UT
Subscribe to Urology Times to get monthly news from the leading news source for urologists.
MORE ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE
The latest products and services from Cook Medical, American Medical Systems, Dialog Medical, Astellas Pharma U.S., Giffen Solutions, the Société Internationale d’Urologie, Merck Consumer Care, and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network.
In this interview, Brian R. Matlaga, MD, MPH, discusses factors to consider in the decision to utilize ureteroscopy versus shock wave lithotripsy, how to counsel patients on the optimal approach, how to minimize the morbidity of each modality, and why younger urologists are more likely to perform ureteroscopy.
The bundled payment model for episodes of care is a major player in what could be sweeping changes to the physician payment system that will likely see traditional fee for service taper off. Bundling has already made inroads in some surgical specialties, and it may very well apply to inpatient urologic procedures as well.
Drugs and devices in the pipeline from Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Metamark Genetics, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Nymox Pharmaceutical Corp., VIVUS, and Sanofi Chimie.
When it comes to how urologists are paid, change is coming.