SIR 2024
Interventional Oncology
Shelly Bhanot, n/a
Resident Physician
Rush University Medical Center
Disclosure information not submitted.
Dustin J. Gulizia, MD (he/him/his)
VIR Fellow
Rush University Medical Center
Financial relationships: Full list of relationships is listed on the CME information page.
Faris Galambo, MD
Fellow Physician
Rush University Medical Center
Disclosure information not submitted.
Rehan Riaz, MD
Assistant Professor of Radiology
Rush University Medical Center
Disclosure information not submitted.
Kumar Madassery, MD
Associate Professor, Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Rush University Medical Center, Rush Oak Park
Financial relationships: Full list of relationships is listed on the CME information page.
Ulku Turba, MD, FSIR
Professor, Vascular and Interventional Radiology
RUSH University Medical Center
Financial relationships: Full list of relationships is listed on the CME information page.
Bulent Arslan, MD, FSIR
Professor and Chair, Vascular and Interventional Service Line
Rush University Medical Center
Financial relationships: Full list of relationships is listed on the CME information page.
Jordan Tasse, MD
Associate Professor, Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Rush University Medical Center
Financial relationships: Full list of relationships is listed on the CME information page.
There were 8 FLC patients with 21 unique lesions treated with PEF ablation in 14 separate interventions. Including retreated lesions, 32 total lesions treated. Lesion locations: chest (47%) and abdomen (53%). Due to lack of follow up imaging, 12 lesions were excluded. Target lesions were found to have partial response (PR) in 5%, stable disease (SD) in 80%, and progressive disease (PD) in 10%. Of note, one (5%) of the target lesions demonstrated pseudoprogression. Local control rate (LCR) defined as complete response (CR) + PR + SD over total treated lesions was 85%. There were 15 non-target lesions, of which 73.3% demonstrated SD and 26.7% demonstrated PD. Mean follow up time for the FLC cohort was 78.5 days.
There were 3 OS patients with 8 unique lesions treated with PEF ablation in 5 separate interventions, all within the thorax. Two lesions were excluded due to lack of follow up imaging. Targeted lesions demonstrated SD in 83.3% and PD in 16.7% lesions. LCR was 83.3%.Two OS patients demonstrated non-targeted lesion treatment response in 62.5% lesions between 3-5 months post-PEF. However, despite non-target response, new metastatic lesions developed in these patients, resulting in classification of PD. Mean follow up time for the OS cohort was 125.3 days.
Complications were limited to a trace pneumothorax in the OS cohort and none in the FLC cohort.
Conclusion: PEF is a safe ablative technology with promising LCR in this short term evaluation. Further evaluation with larger and more robust cohorts is necessary. Given our preliminary review, PEF ablation may be a viable treatment adjunct for patients with metastatic FLC and OS.