Evaluation of a numerical simulation for cryoablation – comparison with bench data, clinical kidney and lung cases

Abstract

Purpose

The accuracy of a numerical simulation of cryoablation ice balls was evaluated in gel phantom data as well as clinical kidney and lung cases.

Materials and methods

To evaluate the accuracy, 64 experimental single-needle cryoablations and 12 multi-needle cryoablations in gel phantoms were re-simulated with the corresponding freeze-thaw-freeze cycles. The simulated temperatures were compared over time with the measurements of thermocouples. For single needles, temperature values were compared at each thermocouple location. For multiple needles, Euclidean distances between simulated and measured isotherms (10 °C, 0 °C, −20 °C, −40 °C) were computed. Furthermore, surface and volume of simulated 0 °C isotherms were compared to cryoablation-induced ice balls in 14 kidney and 13 lung patients. For this purpose, needle positions and relevant anatomical structures defining material parameters (kidney/lung, tumor) were reconstructed from pre-ablation CT images and fused with postablation CT images (from which ice balls were extracted by manual delineation).

Results

The single-needle gel phantom cases showed less than 5 °C prediction error on average. Over all multiple needle experiments in gel, the mean and maximum isotherm distance were less than 2.3 mm and 4.1 mm, respectively. Average Dice coefficients of 0.82/0.63 (kidney/lung) and mean surface distances of 2.59/3.12 mm quantify the prediction performance of the numerical simulation. However, maximum surface distances of 10.57/10.8 mm indicate that locally larger errors have to be expected.

Conclusion

A very good agreement of the numerical simulations for gel experiments was measured and a satisfactory agreement of the numerical simulations with measured ice balls in patient data was shown.

Keywords:

• Cryoablation
• numerical simulation
• lung
• kidney
• evaluation

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Galil Medical (Boston Scientific) for providing the bench data and clinical data used in this study. Furthermore, we would like to thank our colleagues Christiane Engel and Andrea Koller for contouring the clinical images, as well as David Sinden for proofreading the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).