Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria—A 10-Year Update

TLDR

Image‑guided tumor ablation is a widely used local cancer therapy, but the expanding array of techniques creates a need for standardized terminology and reporting to enable clear communication and comparison across modalities. The paper updates a consensus framework to improve communication among researchers about ablative technologies. The authors propose a reporting framework that classifies therapies, defines procedural and imaging terms, and standardizes reporting of technique, follow‑up, complications, and clinical outcomes. Adhering to the recommendations is expected to enhance communication precision, enable more accurate technology comparisons, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Online supplemental material accompanies the article.

Abstract

Image-guided tumor ablation has become a well-established hallmark of local cancer therapy. The breadth of options available in this growing field increases the need for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison among treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (eg, ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, thermal therapies (eg, radiofrequency, laser, microwave, focused ultrasound, and cryoablation) and newer ablative modalities such as irreversible electroporation. This updated consensus document provides a framework that will facilitate the clearest communication among investigators regarding ablative technologies. An appropriate vehicle is proposed for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy including classification of therapies, procedure terms, descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology for imaging and pathologic findings. Methods are addressed for standardizing reporting of technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results. As noted in the original document from 2003, adherence to the recommendations will improve the precision of communications in this field, leading to more accurate comparison of technologies and results, and ultimately to improved patient outcomes. Online supplemental material is available for this article .