Letter to the editor: inaccuracies in a recent article.

摘要

There appear to be some inaccuracies in a recent article entitled "Nonvascular and Portal Vein Applications of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: Current Status."1 On page 152, the authors discuss an article by Iwazawa and then state: "In a study of 48 technically successful RFA procedures, with MDCT as the gold-standard comparison, the authors found no significant difference between MDCT and contrast-enhanced CBCT in detecting insufficient ablative margins (defined as < 5 mm)." I have read the article by Iwazawa. They performed 12 ablations on 12 lesions with 48 ablative margins evaluated. This can be misleading to the readers. I have performed several PubMed searches and I am not aware of any article with 48 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) ablations, and Kapoor et al do not reference any other article in that paragraph.