Table 1.
Baseline patient and disease characteristics.
Fig 1.
Number of patients during follow-up.
The left column shows the numbers of patients at each point of follow-up. The reasons for an exclusion or a lost to follow-up are presented in the right column.
Table 2.
Tumor types of 85 patients treated with irreversible electroporation of malignant liver tumors.
Table 3.
Characteristics of the ablation area during the follow-up.
Table 4.
Evolution of laboratory values during the first year after IRE in 85 patients.
Fig 2.
MR imaging appearance after IRE of a HCC located in segment I of a 58-year old man.
(a) Postinterventional (1 day after IRE) non-enhanced T1 vibe 3d fat suppressed magnetic resonance imaging shows an ablation area with a hypointense rim (white arrow) and a hyperintense center (red arrow). (b) 1 day after IRE the ablation area shows a hyperintense rim (white arrow) and a hypointense central zone (red arrow) in the contrast-enhanced T2 haste-sequences.
Fig 3.
MR imaging appearance after IRE of a HCC located in segment IVb of a 75-year old man.
(a) Postinterventional (1 day after IRE) T1 vibe3d fat suppressed contrast-enhanced MRI obtained in the portal venous phase shows an ablation area with a lot of hyperintense parts in its peripheral zone (red arrow) largely regressing up to the 6-weeks follow-up control (b).
Fig 4.
Signal intensity of the ablation zone over time.
Different MR images obtained in the center (a) and in the peripheral zone (b) of the ablation area (c.e.1: contrast-enhanced; P.V.2: portal venous). Significant differences during the follow-up are highlighted (*).
Table 5.
Results of binary logistic regression model predicting hypointense or isointense MRI appearance of the center (a) and the peripheral zone (b) of the ablation area.