Journal Home
Search for

Volume 20, Issue 7, Supplement, Pages S425-S434 (July 2009)


View previous. 40 of 51 View next.

Transcatheter Therapy for Hepatic Malignancy: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria

Society of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment Committee and the International Working Group on Image-Guided Tumor AblationDaniel B. Brown, MDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Jennifer E. Gould, MDa, Debra A. Gervais, MDb, S. Nahum Goldberg, MDc, Ravi Murthy, MDd, Steven F. Millward, MDe, William S. Rilling, MDf, Jean-Francois S. Geschwind, MDg, Riad Salem, MD, MBAh, Suresh Vedantham, MDa, John F. Cardella, MDi, Michael C. Soulen, MDj

The field of interventional oncology includes tumor ablation as well as the use of transcatheter therapies such as embolization, chemoembolization, and radioembolization. Terminology and reporting standards for tumor ablation have been developed. The development of standardization of terminology and reporting criteria for transcatheter therapies should provide a similar framework to facilitate the clearest communication among investigators and provide the greatest flexibility in comparing established and emerging technologies. An appropriate vehicle for reporting the various aspects of catheter directed therapy is outlined, including classification of therapies and procedure terms, appropriate descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology to define imaging and pathologic findings. Methods for standardizing the reporting of outcomes toxicities, complications, and other important aspects that require attention when reporting clinical results are addressed. It is the intention of the group that adherence to the recommendations will facilitate achievement of the group's main objective: improved precision and communication for reporting the various aspects of transcatheter management of hepatic malignancy that will translate to more accurate comparison of technologies and results and, ultimately, to improved patient outcomes.

a Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

b Department of Radiology, Gastrointestinal/Genitourinary Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

c Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

d Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

e Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Omemee, Ontario, Canada

f Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

g Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

h Division of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois

i Department of Radiology, Baystate Health System/Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, Massachusetts

j Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to D.B.B., Division of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Suite 4200 Gibbon Building, 111 South 11th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107

 None of the authors have identified a conflict of interest.

 This article first appeared in J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007; 18:1469–1478.

PII: S1051-0443(09)00318-2

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.021


View previous. 40 of 51 View next.