Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This scoping review presents an overview of available ablation confirmation (AC) software used during thermal ablation (TA) of liver tumours, focusing on features influencing clinical implementation.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified studies reporting on local tumour progression (LTP) following TA using AC software for quantitative assessment of minimal ablative margins (MAM). Clinical usability was evaluated by scoring presence of data on ten predefined software features that could enhance clinical adoption, per software.</p> Results <p>Of 491 articles, 23 studies on 18 AC software tools were included. Most AC software was commercially available (13/18; 72%), of which 31% were non-dedicated software to liver ablation margin assessment. Clinical usability parameters were frequently underreported, with an average score of 4 out of 10.</p> Conclusion <p>Although clinical availability and evidence for AC software-based margin assessment are increasing, factors enhancing clinical usability are relatively poorly studied, limiting current clinical integration.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ablation Confirmation Software in Thermal Ablation of Liver Tumours: A Scoping Review of Contemporary Applications and Clinical Usability

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月20日

查看全文
  • H. H. Schulz,
  • A. L. Pos,
  • S. van der Lei,
  • D. J. W. Vos,
  • M. Dijkstra,
  • F. E. F. Timmer,
  • G. L. Burchell,
  • R. S. Puijk,
  • G. Laimer,
  • R. Bale,
  • C. G. Overduin,
  • M. R. Meijerink

摘要

Purpose

This scoping review presents an overview of available ablation confirmation (AC) software used during thermal ablation (TA) of liver tumours, focusing on features influencing clinical implementation.

Methods

A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified studies reporting on local tumour progression (LTP) following TA using AC software for quantitative assessment of minimal ablative margins (MAM). Clinical usability was evaluated by scoring presence of data on ten predefined software features that could enhance clinical adoption, per software.

Results

Of 491 articles, 23 studies on 18 AC software tools were included. Most AC software was commercially available (13/18; 72%), of which 31% were non-dedicated software to liver ablation margin assessment. Clinical usability parameters were frequently underreported, with an average score of 4 out of 10.

Conclusion

Although clinical availability and evidence for AC software-based margin assessment are increasing, factors enhancing clinical usability are relatively poorly studied, limiting current clinical integration.

Graphical Abstract