Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Radiol. Jan 28, 2025; 17(1): 98618
Published online Jan 28, 2025. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v17.i1.98618
Table 1 Overview of minimally invasive ablation techniques
Technique
Mechanism
Frequency range
Max temperature
Tumor types treated
Strengths
Limitations
Common complications
Radiofrequency ablationHigh-frequency currents to induce coagulative necrosis460-500 KHz100 °CAdrenal gland, bone, breast, kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, thyroidOldest technique, low cost, minimal equipmentRequires conductivity, heat sink, less effective over timeBleeding, pain, infection, tumor seeding, skin burns, post-RFA syndrome
Microwave ablationElectromagnetic waves to induce coagulative necrosis300 MHz-300 GHz150 °CAdrenal gland, bone, breast, kidney, liver, lung, prostate, spleen, uterusHigher temps quickly, no conductivity needed, multiple probes for larger ablationCables can burn patient, requires cooling, less preciseBleeding, pain, infection, tumor seeding, skin burns, post-ablation syndrome
CryoablationExtreme cold to induce cell deathN/A (cryogenic gases)-196 °CBone, breast, kidney, liver, lung, prostate, skinNo heat, vessel occlusion, minimal damage to nearby tissues, multiple probes for larger ablationSpecialized gases needed, safety hazard with compressed gasesInfection, pain, bleeding, cryoshock, cryoreaction
High-intensity focused ultrasoundHigh-intensity ultrasound to generate localized heat and necrosis0.8-3.5 MHzExceeds 60 °C rapidlyBone, breast, desmoid, kidney, liver, pancreas, prostate, uterusNon-invasive, high precision, lower risk of off-target damageRequires anesthetics, affected by tissue echogenicitySkin burn, pain, fistula, local edema, hyperpigmentation
HistotripsyCavitation bubbles to mechanically disintegrate tumors250 KHz-6 MHzN/ABrain, breast, kidney, liver, muscle, pancreas, prostate, skin, thymusNon-invasive, non-thermal, high precision, lowest risk of off-target damageRequires anesthetics, affected by tissue echogenicity, experimental, low clinical dataImmune-mediated responses