Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Sensitivity of microwave ablation models to tissue biophysical properties: A first step toward probabilistic modeling and treatment planning

J. Sebek, N. Albin, R. Bortel, B. Natarajan, P. Prakash,

. 2016 ; 43 (5) : 2649.

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

PURPOSE: Computational models of microwave ablation (MWA) are widely used during the design optimization of novel devices and are under consideration for patient-specific treatment planning. The objective of this study was to assess the sensitivity of computational models of MWA to tissue biophysical properties. METHODS: The Morris method was employed to assess the global sensitivity of the coupled electromagnetic-thermal model, which was implemented with the finite element method (FEM). The FEM model incorporated temperature dependencies of tissue physical properties. The variability of the model was studied using six different outputs to characterize the size and shape of the ablation zone, as well as impedance matching of the ablation antenna. Furthermore, the sensitivity results were statistically analyzed and absolute influence of each input parameter was quantified. A framework for systematically incorporating model uncertainties for treatment planning was suggested. RESULTS: A total of 1221 simulations, incorporating 111 randomly sampled starting points, were performed. Tissue dielectric parameters, specifically relative permittivity, effective conductivity, and the threshold temperature at which they transitioned to lower values (i.e., signifying desiccation), were identified as the most influential parameters for the shape of the ablation zone and antenna impedance matching. Of the thermal parameters considered in this study, the nominal blood perfusion rate and the temperature interval across which the tissue changes phase were identified as the most influential. The latent heat of tissue water vaporization and the volumetric heat capacity of the vaporized tissue were recognized as the least influential parameters. Based on the evaluation of absolute changes, the most important parameter (perfusion) had approximately 40.23 times greater influence on ablation area than the least important parameter (volumetric heat capacity of vaporized tissue). Another significant input parameter (permittivity) had 22.26 times higher influence on the deviation of ablation edge shape from a sphere than one of the less important parameters (latent heat of liver tissue vaporization). CONCLUSIONS: Dielectric parameters, blood perfusion rate, and the temperature interval across which the tissue changes phase were found to have the most significant impact on MWA model outputs. The latent heat of tissue water vaporization and the volumetric heat capacity of the vaporized tissue were recognized as the least influential parameters. Uncertainties in model outputs identified in this study can be incorporated to provide probabilistic maps of expected ablation outcome for patient-specific treatment planning.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17013881
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170418103356.0
007      
ta
008      
170413s2016 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1118/1.4947482 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)27147374
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Sebek, Jan $u Department of Circuit Theory, Czech Technical University in Prague, Praha 6 16627, Czech Republic and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506.
245    10
$a Sensitivity of microwave ablation models to tissue biophysical properties: A first step toward probabilistic modeling and treatment planning / $c J. Sebek, N. Albin, R. Bortel, B. Natarajan, P. Prakash,
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Computational models of microwave ablation (MWA) are widely used during the design optimization of novel devices and are under consideration for patient-specific treatment planning. The objective of this study was to assess the sensitivity of computational models of MWA to tissue biophysical properties. METHODS: The Morris method was employed to assess the global sensitivity of the coupled electromagnetic-thermal model, which was implemented with the finite element method (FEM). The FEM model incorporated temperature dependencies of tissue physical properties. The variability of the model was studied using six different outputs to characterize the size and shape of the ablation zone, as well as impedance matching of the ablation antenna. Furthermore, the sensitivity results were statistically analyzed and absolute influence of each input parameter was quantified. A framework for systematically incorporating model uncertainties for treatment planning was suggested. RESULTS: A total of 1221 simulations, incorporating 111 randomly sampled starting points, were performed. Tissue dielectric parameters, specifically relative permittivity, effective conductivity, and the threshold temperature at which they transitioned to lower values (i.e., signifying desiccation), were identified as the most influential parameters for the shape of the ablation zone and antenna impedance matching. Of the thermal parameters considered in this study, the nominal blood perfusion rate and the temperature interval across which the tissue changes phase were identified as the most influential. The latent heat of tissue water vaporization and the volumetric heat capacity of the vaporized tissue were recognized as the least influential parameters. Based on the evaluation of absolute changes, the most important parameter (perfusion) had approximately 40.23 times greater influence on ablation area than the least important parameter (volumetric heat capacity of vaporized tissue). Another significant input parameter (permittivity) had 22.26 times higher influence on the deviation of ablation edge shape from a sphere than one of the less important parameters (latent heat of liver tissue vaporization). CONCLUSIONS: Dielectric parameters, blood perfusion rate, and the temperature interval across which the tissue changes phase were found to have the most significant impact on MWA model outputs. The latent heat of tissue water vaporization and the volumetric heat capacity of the vaporized tissue were recognized as the least influential parameters. Uncertainties in model outputs identified in this study can be incorporated to provide probabilistic maps of expected ablation outcome for patient-specific treatment planning.
650    _2
$a ablace $x metody $7 D055011
650    _2
$a algoritmy $7 D000465
650    _2
$a zvířata $7 D000818
650    _2
$a biomechanika $7 D001696
650    12
$a počítačová simulace $7 D003198
650    _2
$a elektromagnetické jevy $7 D055590
650    _2
$a analýza metodou konečných prvků $7 D020342
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a játra $x fyziologie $7 D008099
650    12
$a mikrovlny $7 D008872
650    12
$a teoretické modely $7 D008962
650    _2
$a individualizovaná medicína $x metody $7 D057285
650    _2
$a regionální krevní průtok $7 D012039
650    _2
$a teplota $7 D013696
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Albin, Nathan $u Department of Mathematics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. $7 gn_A_00003514
700    1_
$a Bortel, Radoslav $u Department of Circuit Theory, Czech Technical University in Prague, Praha 6 16627, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Natarajan, Bala $u Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506.
700    1_
$a Prakash, Punit $u Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506.
773    0_
$w MED00003245 $t Medical physics $x 2473-4209 $g Roč. 43, č. 5 (2016), s. 2649
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27147374 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170413 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170418103703 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1200346 $s 974659
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 43 $c 5 $d 2649 $i 2473-4209 $m Medical physics $n Med Phys $x MED00003245
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170413

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...